Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Renfrewshire County Council (Giffnock Railway Bridges) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Perth County Buildings Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION. [STAMP DUTIES.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move,
That in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or instruments which, in case the Perth County Buildings Order had not been confirmed, would have been required to pass to and vest in the County Council of Perth certain lands, buildings, and other heritable property, there be charged a Stamp Duty of £5, and such duty shall be impressed upon a copy of the Act confirming the Order to be produced to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the fourth Section thereof.
This is an example of procedure on Private Bills which only occurs at very rare intervals. What has happened in this case is that the Special Commissioners of the County of Perth propose to transfer to the Perth County Council certain buildings which have been in their possession for, I understand, something like 120 years. The value of these buildings has had to be taken into account, and in the ordinary course the full Stamp Duty on the transfer would have to be paid, but as it is a question of transfer from one public body to another, it is thought inadvisable to charge the whole of the Stamp Duty, whereby the county
of Perth will be relieved, at the expense of the Treasury, of a fairly considerable sum. It is, therefore, proposed to put a nominal Stamp Duty of £5 on the transfer, but as that, small as is the amount involved, imposes a charge on the public funds, it has to go through the usual procedure of getting a Money Resolution in this House.

Mr. THURTLE: As this is a matter which is going to involve a saving of money to Scotland, I do not propose to object.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAILWAY BOARD (INDIANS).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the promise of the Government of India, any Indians have been appointed as members of the Railway Board; and, if not, why this undertaking has not been fulfilled?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) on 21st November.

COCAINE (ILLICIT TRAFFIC).

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his Department has any information with reference to the illicit importation of cocaine into India; and can he give the particulars?

Earl WINTERTON: I will send the hon. Member copy of a recent question and answer in the Indian Council of State on the subject, and some particulars which were communicated to the League of Nations to illustrate the extent of the traffic. All cocaine used in India is imported; its importation is subject to the closest control, but the illicit traffic cannot be successfully stopped, except with the co-operation of manufacturing countries.

Colonel DAY: Can the Noble Lord say where the majority of the illicit importations of cocaine come from?

Earl WINTERTON: No, I cannot, in every case, give the country of origin. If the hon. Member will read the answer given in the Council of State, which was a rather full statement, he will see the difficulties of the problem. The point is that it does come from other countries, but it is impossible to say the particular country. For example, if a man is found with illicit cocaine, it is impossible to say where he got it, but if other countries would have the same Regulations as those in force in India, we should be able to stop it.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the majority of it comes from China?

Earl WINTERTON: As I say, it is quite impossible to say.

MINERS (WORKING HOURS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 3 and 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1), if he is aware that miners in the Ramganji coalfield are permitted to remain down the collieries for two or three days at a time; whether they are working the whole of the time; and, if so, are steps being taken to restrict the number of working hours in this area;
(2) whether it is proposed to amend the Indian Mines Act, 1923, by increasing the working day so as to enable miners to work a 12-hours day?

Earl WINTERTON: At present the daily hours during which miners may remain and work in mines are not subject to any legal maximum, but weekly hours are limited to 54 for underground-work. It is probably the case that there are few mines in which a standard of more than eight hours' daily work is maintained on the average, but in order to prevent miners from remaining underground for excessive periods a Bill has been introduced in the Indian Legislature and circulated for criticism under which a system of shifts would be enforced and a daily maximum of 12 hours' work imposed, the weekly maximum of 54 hours underground remaining unchanged.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand the Noble Lord to say that the Bill will enable Indian miners to work a maximum of 12 hours each day?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes. The Bill is being circulated for consideration among members of the Assembly. It prevents the present system, by which there is no such limit imposed.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that the object of the Bill is to try and prevent the miners staying below ground more than a certain period, rather than, as the question would infer, to make them work long hours,?

Earl WINTERTON: That is so, certainly. The effect of the Bill is to increase the restrictions which have been imposed in recent years upon excessive hours of miners.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Will the Noble Lord take care to represent to the authorities responsible for this Bill that it would be better, in view of our experience, that that restriction should go a good deal further than the 12 hours suggested?

Earl WINTERTON: It would probably be rather improper for me to give any pledge of that kind, as the Bill is circulated for the opinion of members of the Assembly, and no doubt that sort of point of view will occur to the minds of members of the Assembly.

SANDHURST COMMITTEE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the decisions of the Government with regard to the findings of the Sandhurst Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: Not yet, Sir, but the Government of India hope to be able to do so when the Assembly meets next year.

CHRISTIAN RELIGION (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. THURTLE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to state the amount of money which was paid out of the revenues of India during the last financial year for the purpose of assisting in the maintenance of the Christian religion in India?

Earl WINTERTON: The total expenditure on the maintenance of chaplains and churches for the troops and civil servants of the Crown who are Christians is approximately 41 lakhs or, roughly, £300,000.

ANGLICAN CHURCH (ADHERENTS).

Mr. THURTLE: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the approximate number of adherents to the Indian branch of the Anglican Church in India, both European and Indian; and what percentage this bears to the total population of India?

Earl WINTERTON: The approximate number of Anglicans as ascertained in the Census of 1921 was 533,180, of whom 108,759 belonged to European and Allied races. The number represents a percentage of decimal 17 on the total population of India, including the Indian States.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the Noble Lord now explain why he said the other day that the figures which I quoted, which were approximately these, were quite inaccurate?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes. It was because the hon. Member was confusing two things. He was quoting the figures given by my Noble Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, who referred to the number of Anglicans and gave the figures correctly. The hon. Member was referring to the total number of Christians. The total number of Christians in India is between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000.

HINDUS AND MOSLEMS.

Mr. THURTLE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the recent arrangements between Hindus and Moslems on the subjects of cow-killing and music before mosques, which subjects have been the main causes of communal disturbances?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information beyond what is available to readers of the Indian Press, from which I gather that it is unfortunately somewhat premature to suppose that any generally accepted accommodation has been arrived at.

CORONEL AND FALKLANDS BATTLES (FILM).

Viscount SANDON: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will approach the various Governments concerned for the purpose of arranging for the production locally
in the British West Indies and other Colonies of the film of the battles of Coronel and the Falklands?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As I understand that the distributing rights in this film are in the hands of private enterprise, my Noble Friend will realise that it would not be desirable for me to accept his suggestion.

Colonel DAY: Are not the Government interested in the profits of this film, and would it not be beneficial for them to take some interest in the distribution of it

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think so. If the Colonial Office started recommending particular films to particular Colonial Governments, there would be no end to it.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty stated in this House some time ago that the Admiralty were financially interested in the profits?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of that statement.

FALKLAND ISLANDS (COMMUNICATIONS).

Viscount SANDON: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the communications as to wireless, cable, and mails of the Falkland Islands: whether any steps are being taken towards their improvement; whether the installation of direct wireless communication with Great Britain or some part of the Empire can be undertaken; and what would the cost of this be?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no cable communication with the Falkland Islands. Mails are transmitted in either direction by vessels of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company and such other opportunities as occur from time to time. Since 1st January, 1927, there have been 17 homeward and 14 outward mails, in addition to despatches to Montevideo which have latterly been made each week. I am at present in communication with the Governor in regard to the possible provision of a small vessel to ply between
the Colony and Montevideo, with a view to providing a more regular and frequent postal service. As regards wireless communication, messages from the Government station at Stanley are relayed usually via the wireless telegraph station at Cerritos in Uruguay. The Governor has recently submitted proposals for the establishment of a station capable of direct short-wave communication with the United Kingdom, at a cost which he estimates roughly at £3,000. These proposals are being examined from the technical and the financial point of view.

AIR SERVICES (BRITISH GUIANA, TRINIDAD AND BARBADOS).

Viscount SANDON: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governments of British Guiana, Trinidad and Barbados are taking any action on the proposals of the West Indian Civil Air Transport Committee; and when the suggested services are likely to be put into operation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Report of the Committee to which my Noble Friend refers is now on its way to the West Indian Governments. Until they have had an opportunity of considering the Report, I can say nothing as to the action which they are likely to take.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EAST AFRICA.

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an economic commission appointed by the Japanese Government has recently visited Kenya and Uganda, with the object of extending Japanese trade in those Colonies; and, having regard to the loan commitments of this country to Kenya and Uganda, whether he will devise measures to safeguard British export trade to East Africa against the competition of Japan and other countries?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The anwer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government are anxious
to foster British export trade to the territories concerned; and I shall be happy to consider any concrete suggestions which my hon. Friend may like to make with that object in view, bearing always in mind that it would be inconsistent with existing international obligations to extend any preferential treatment to goods of British origin imported into those territories.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total number of articles on which a new Customs duty has been placed in the United Kingdom or an old duty increased since 1924?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I have been asked to reply. It is impossible to state in numerical form the range of individual articles which may be affected by the new or increased Customs duties imposed since 1924, but perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the new duties imposed and old duties increased since 1924. Several of these duties apply to a great number of articles which cannot be enumerated separately.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Could not the hon. Gentleman give me the total according to classes?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the list when it has been published it will give him, I think, the information which he requires. If he does not find it there and will put down another question, I will do my best to get it for him.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the difficulty of giving an answer owing to the fact that the numbers run into several thousands?

Mr. SAMUEL: No.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the total number of classes on the list he is going to circulate?

Mr. SAMUEL: It all depends on how they are classified.

Following is the list:

(a)New Customs duties imposed since 1924.

1925.

McKenna Duties:

Cinema Films
Clocks and Watches.
Motor Cars (exemption in favour of commercial vehicles repealed in 1926, and of tyres in 1927).
Musical Instruments.
Silk and Artificial Silk.
Hops.
Lace and Embroidery.
Cutlery.
Gloves.
Incandescent Mantles.

1926.

Packing or Wrapping Paper.
Key Industry Duty extended to cover molybdenum and other rare metals, etc.

1927.

Translucent Pottery.

(b) Old Customs duties increased since 1924.

1927.

Wine.
Tobacco.
Matches.

1926.

Key Industry Duty increased on certain articles (optical glass, etc.).

LANCASHIRE TEXTILE GOODS (CHINA).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 26.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the latest returns indicating both the extent and the recovery, if any, of the export trade in Lancashire textile goods to China?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the exports of cotton piece-goods to China and Hong Kong registered in each month since January, 1926. This table shows that in recent months there has been a slight recovery in exports from the low level reached in the second quarter of 1927.

Following is the table:


EXPORTS from the United Kingdom of Cotton Piece Goods registered as consigned to China (including Hong Kong) during each month, January, 1926 to October, 1927.


—
Cotton Piece Goods.


Quantities.
Declared Values.


1926.
Thousand sq. yds.
£


January
19,272
799,731


February
23,622
985,139


March
19,528
771,936


April
16,612
598,660


May
10,382
358,213


June
15,745
599,042


July
11,460
488,498


August
18,503
700,965


September
13,269
461,386


October
11,282
402,261


November
9,104
331,403


December
8,688
334,212


1927.




January
18,577
766,057


February
15,952
678,746


March
10,992
409,605


April
3,966
122,066


May
5,219
163,171


June
5,538
180,264


July
5,501
206,321


August
6,671
220,973


September
6,986
236,329


October
7,529
255,490

GOLD (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. ALBERY: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in sterling the value of the total import of gold, bullion, and specie into this country since 1st January last to date; and the total export from this country for the same period?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The values in sterling of gold bullion and coin imported and exported during the period 1st January, 1927, to 30th November, 1927, were as follow:


Imports.
Exports.


£30,498,199
£25,986,356

EGGS, SCOTLAND (MARKETING GRANT).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Empire Marketing Board has approved a grant to the Orkney Egg Trade Association for the furtherance of the association's scheme of marketing?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked, as acting chairman of the Empire Marketing Board, to reply to this question. The Empire Marketing Board has approved a substantial grant to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purpose of improving the methods of marketing eggs in that country. A portion of this grant will be made available by that Department for the initial administrative expenses of marketing associations in Scotland. The association to which my hon. Friend refers has been advised by the board to communicate with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any specific amount has been allocated to this association?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No; the Empire Marketing Board give an over-riding sum to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the apportionment of that sum between the various associations for initial administrative expenses is left to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

RETIRED COLONIAL GOVERNORS AND OFFICIALS (DIRECTORSHIPS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the proposed directorate of Alluvial Diamonds (Gold Coast), Limited, and the presence on the board of two ex-governors and three ex-officials; and whether, seeing that this is not in accordance with Regulations based on the revised pensions scale, he will advise the governor of the Gold Coast that no concession should be granted to the company without receiving his prior sanction?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have seen the prospectus of this company. Three of the proposed directors are ex-officials and of these two are ex-governors. Only one of them, however, draws a pension from Gold Coast funds and he has already asked the governor for the necessary permission under the Pensions Law.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from this that the Colonial Office approve of these ex-governors and ex-officials who have direct administration over these native territories being
directors of a company which has procured concessions in those territories?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No; the hon. Gentleman is putting a very bad construction upon this. As a matter of fact, one of the governors who is to be a director has never served in the Gold Coast. The second of the officers concerned, who was an inspector of mines, resigned and has received no pension, and therefore we have no control over him in any way. As regards the third, the governor was asking permission under the Pensions Law. He was Governor of Gambia, although he had previously served in the Northern territories and the Gold Coast. I do not think it is for me to express approval or disapproval.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman gave me a distinct answer in the House not so long ago that governors of territories were given a higher pension in order that they might not take directorships of companies on their retirement. How does this action compare with that promise?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid that they do not get a higher pension. In fact, in most cases they get a lower pension than if they had never been governors. In many cases men in the Colonial service who have never been governors get a higher pension than governors.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether there is anything in the suggestion that ex-governors of any part of His Majesty's Dominions are supposed not to become directors of companies which may be connected with these Dominions? If so, it is very desirable that that impression should be corrected at once. I do not see any reason why an ex-governor should not be a director of any company.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is entirely a question within the provisions of the Pensions Law. In many Colonies there is a provision under the Pensions Law that applies to ex-governors and other Colonial civil servants that they shall not, without prior consultation and approval, become directors of companies in the territory in which they have served. That is part of the rule, but otherwise, ex-governors and other ex-civil servants are free to become directors of what companies they like.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) right, or am I right as to the desires of the Colonial Office in this matter? Do they or do they not approve of ex-governors of territories taking directorships of companies which deal with those territories in which they served?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not really a question of approval or disapproval.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not undesirable that officials should use the information they gained in their official capacity afterwards to make profit for themselves?

BRITISH GUIANA (IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, GEORGETOWN).

Mr. GARDNER: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the sources of revenue available to the Georgetown Town Council to meet the commitments in connection with the city improvements schemes of Georgetown, British Guiana, as the taxes and licences within the Georgetown municipal area are appropriated by the Colonial Government; whether the deputation from the Georgetown Town Council directed his attention to this; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The revenue of this corporation is principally derived from rates levied on lands and buildings within the municipal area, income from its own markets and subventions from the Colonial Government. The deputation drew my attention to these facts in connection with this application for a redistribution of the burden of the Georgetown improvement schemes between the Colonial Government and the municipality. They were informed that this was a matter which, in the first instance, must be considered by the Governor.

IRAQ (AGREEMENT).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations between the British and Iraq Governments on the question of Iraq applying for membership of the League of Nations are now terminated; and whether he has any statement on the subject to communicate to this House?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The discussions that have been taking place with the King of Iraq have been carried to a point at which a satisfactory accord has been reached. The Prime Minister of Iraq, who had to leave London some days ago, is now on his way back, and it is hoped that as soon as he returns an agreement will be signed. Pending its signature I regret that I cannot furnish the House with any detailed information on the subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the signature is received, will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement in this House in the first place before anything appears in the Press officially?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think it is contemplated that the new agreement, when signed, will either be laid as a White Paper or presented in some form. It will have to be presented to the Council of the League of Nations, and I will look up the procedure which was followed in cases of similar agreements before.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing this agreement?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question must be put down.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it anticipated that there will be a reduction in expenditure as a result of the agreement?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must have notice of a question of that kind.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Will it relieve us of any part of our responsibilities?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I can add nothing to my reply pending the final conclusion of this agreement and its signature, and it would be very improper for me to say anything.

DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will undertake not to give away the concession for the Dead Sea minerals without first informing the House of the conditions and terms of the concession?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no question of giving away any concession for the extraction of various mineral salts from the waters of the Dead Sea. Negotiations are proceeding on behalf of the Palestine and Transjordan Governments with a view to safeguarding the interests of these Governments under any concession which may be granted. It would Dot be either practicable nor in accordance with precedent that the terms and conditions should be published before signature.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the extremely valuable nature of this potash concession, both to this country and the world in general, and to the fact that Germany has a monopoly of potash, cannot the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence first before giving this away?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no question of giving this away, and it is not mine to give. The negotiations are on behalf of the mandatory Governments of Palestine and Transjordania, and the question of the possible relations to the German monopoly will be borne in mind. So much exaggeration has taken place about these deposits, which are not only potash, that I must enter a word of caution in regard to them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand from his answer, in which he brackets Palestine and Transjordania, that the royalties which presumably will be derived from the sale of this potash will go to the Trans Jordanian and Palestinian Governments? If so, in what shares, and will this Government get any contributions from these royalties?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I really must ask for notice of that question, but I think it is premature, as negotiations have not gone very far. I certainly cannot go into the question of respective shares.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the Transjordanian Government the Emir Abdullah?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, the Transjordanian Government is the Government of the mandated territories, and its rights have to be preserved. The theory is that the frontier between
Palestine and Transjordania lies somewhere down the middle of the Dead Sea.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is really becoming a Debate.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether negotiations for the Dead Sea salts concessions have been undertaken with Mr. Novomeysky or with Major Tulloch; and what are Mr. Novomeysky's qualifications?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Negotiations are proceeding with these two gentlemen jointly. Mr. Novomeysky is an engineer with experience in the separation of mineral salts by evaporation; and he has for some time been carrying out experimental work on a small scale on the shore of the Dead Sea.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that besides being a distinguished engineer and chemist, Mr. Novomeysky is a Palestinian subject and therefore a British-protected subject?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: He is a Palestinian.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the real anxiety in this country is not as to the names of the people who are to get this concession, but that the concession should remain entirely in British hands?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Article 18 of the Mandate of Palestine has to be respected.

Mr. BRIGGS: In making this concession, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the terms are such that the potash will come to this country, and not, as in the case of Nauru Island phosphates, where we find the money and other people get the phosphates?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not a fact that all the negotiations are going through with Mr. Novomeysky, and that Major Tulloch is taking no part whatever in them?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No; I am told that is not so. The meetings between the Crown Agents who are acting on behalf of the Palestinian Government have been attended by Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky.

Mr. HARDIE: Instead of having the names as we have got them here, cannot we get back to the Macleans and Mackenzies who gave you all the salts you wanted?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Major Tulloch is a Scotsman.

KENYA (FEETHAM COMMISSION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Feetham Commission was appointed to deal with local government in Kenya Colony; and whether the Terms of Reference to the Commission have been enlarged so as to include recommendations regarding questions of general colonial administration, such as alterations in the judicial system?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. By a Commission, dated 8th October, 1926, the original Terms of Reference were extended to include an inquiry into the desirability of granting magisterial power to selected Justices of the Peace in the settled areas of the colony and the extent of the powers, if any, which should be so granted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to take it that the Government's approval or qualified approval of the Report of the Commission includes approval of the recommendation that settlers should act as magistrates

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not received a communication from the Governor about that. All that he has reported is that he is sending this Report to the districts concerned and consulting both official and unofficial residents before letting me know his views.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the extraordinary undesirability of allowing people to be judges in labour questions where their interests are directly concerned?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the rule that obtains in regard to magistrates in this country where their interests are concerned will obviously obtain there.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But magistrates in this country do not get labour under regulations which they direct.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Government pay as much attention to the findings of this Commission as they did to the findings of the Feetham Commission in the Irish boundary case?

DUTCH EAST INDIES (COMMUNIST AGITATION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are made to deal with the suppression of Communist agitation in British territories adjoining the Dutch East Indies; whether he is aware that Communist propaganda in the Dutch East Indies is stimulated by agitators using British territory as a base; and whether he can take any further steps to suppress these activities?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Malayan authorities are fully alive to the dangers of international Communist agitation, and I have recently approved of steps being taken to bring the local law into line with that of this country, which will, I believe, assist in dealing with the difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAMB DISEASE (YORKSHIRE POWDERS).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the results of the use of Yorkshire powders in warding off lamb disease; whether he is aware that for some years they have practically eliminated the disease wherever and for as long as they have been used on a farm; whether the Farmers' Union of England and Scotland has reported on the matter; and whether his Department has investigated the matter, and with what result?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply is rather long, I propose, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The right hon. Gentleman himself called my attention to the use of Yorkshire powders in May last. I consulted the Lamb Dysentry Research Committee, who reported on 27th June as follows:—

"(1) The Committee attaches primary importance to investigations bearing on
967
the cause of the disease and the means by which it is spread, but considers that it is desirable wherever possible to test the actions of suitable drugs.
(2)Having regard to the considerable variations which may occur in connection with the incidence and virulence of the disease, no reliance can be placed on the apparent success of the therapeutic measures unless these measures have been applied under more carefully regulated conditions with suitable controls.
(3) With regard to the so-called "Yorkshire Powders," the evidence at present is quite inconclusive for the following reasons:

(a) There have been many reports of apparent success attending their use, but in few, if any, of these instances have suitable control lambs been kept untreated.
(b) In a number of reported instances serious mortality has occurred in spite of the use of these powders, which have appeared to exercise no beneficial influence whatever.

For these reasons the Committee feels that it is not in a position to express any opinion as to the possible value of these powders."

As lamb dysentry only occurs in the spring, the Committee have nothing more to add to their views.

RAILWAY CHARGES AND FACILITIES.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the railway charges falling on agricultural produce; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make any proposals which might result in lower charges and better transport facilities for the most perishable articles concerned?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Railway Rates Tribunal was set up under the Railways Act, 1921, to deal with such questions as railway charges for agricultural produce. I understand that agricultural interests were represented and heard by the Tribunal in connection with the proceedings precedent to the fixing of the new charges which come into force on 1st January, 1928. If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind any particular directions in which he considers transport facilities might be
reasonably improved, I would suggest that he should send particulars to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, as I have no statutory power in matters of this kind.

COTTAGE AND SMALLHOLDINGS (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will explain why he has refused his consent to the Lancashire County Council to purchase four farmhouses and buildings and 283 acres of land which they required for the establishment of cottage and smallholdings; and will he state in what particular the proposed purchase differs from other transactions conducted by the Lancashire Smallholding Committee?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have not refused consent to the purchase of the property to which the hon. Member refers. The position is that the price proposed to be paid by the council is considerably in excess of the value placed on the property for smallholdings purposes by the Ministry's professional advisers, and the council have accordingly been asked to try to negotiate the purchase at a lower figure.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the price proposals were on the basis of values calculated by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department?

Mr. GUINNESS: No; what is a reasonable price in our view is considerably lower than that which has been put * forward by the local authorities, and I feel bound under the Act to see that this land is not acquired at any figure above, what is reasonable.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from that answer that the proposal is not definitely turned down, and that if a suitable price can be arranged, this proposal can be proceeded with?

Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, most certainly. I believe negotiations are proceeding on that basis.

MILK (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).

Mr. LAMB: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish a statement giving the statutory requirements, so far as they are administered by his Department, governing the production and manufacture of milk in this country, including the requirements in respect to
wages paid by dairy farmers, in parallel columns with the corresponding statutory obligations existing in all countries from which condensed skimmed milk is imported into Great Britain, showing in each case the measures taken to enforce such statutory requirements?

Mr. GUINNESS: The statutory requirements governing the production and manufacture of milk in this country are administered by the Minister of Health, and I observe that my hon. Friend has addressed a question for answer tomorrow on the subject to my right hon. Friend. As regards the wages regulations in other countries, I am not in a position to supply this information, but I will have inquiries made.

FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (LIABILITY).

Mr. LAMB: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that work in connection with the development of agricultural co-operation, formerly done by the Agricultural Organisation Society with the aid of public moneys, is mow being carried out by the National Farmers' Union at the expense of its members; whether he has received representations from the union in regard to the manner in which such development is impeded by reason of the unlimited liability under the existing law of members of farmers' co-operative societies; and whether he can give any assurance that a Government Bill will be introduced without delay in the next Session of Parliament to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act so as to limit the liability of members of societies registered under that Act?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and have the matter under consideration.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there any prospect of the Bill being introduced soon? This is a matter which has been under consideration for a long time.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it was brought to our notice only at the end of the summer, and it is a very complicated matter. As the hon. Member knows, I shall be very glad to consult with him and get his assistance as to how the matter may best be dealt with.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the matter has become very serious ever since the appeal and that development has been held up?

Mr. GUINNESS: A Bill is in draft, and I shall be very glad to consult with the hon. Member about details.

CONFERENCE, LINCOLN (RESOLUTIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received, the resolutions unanimously passed at a conference of agriculturists held at Lincoln on 10th and 24th October, 1927; and if he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have been asked to reply. I have received and carefully considered the resolutions in question. I have at various times made statements in regard to many of the points mentioned in the resolutions, which cover a wide field and cannot be suitably dealt with in answer to a Parliamentary question.

HIGH COURT JUDGES.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 32.
asked the Attorney-General whether he will issue, for the information of the House, a tabular statement, in continuation of that given by him on the 10th December, 1924, relating to the withdrawal of judges from judicial duties, and bring such information down to date?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The answer to this question is in the affirmative. I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. NIELD: 33.
asked the Attorney-General the number of occasions upon which the services of His Majesty's Judges of the King's Bench Division have been requisitioned for extra-judicial duties since the Address for the appointment of two additional Judges was moved in 1924; and, seeing that the present 15 members of the Bench constitute its full statutory strength, what special reasons exist for a further increase in the number at the present time?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will circulate the information asked for in the first part of the question in the
OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the last part of the question, the reasons for the appointment of additional Judges in the King's Bench Division have been stated by my right hon. and Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in moving the Address in another place, and will be given to

RETURN of NAMES of JUDGES of ALL DIVISIONS of the High Court of Justice and the number of days on which they have been engaged on extra-judicial duties during judicial hours since 10th December, 1924.


Judge.
Business.
Number of days engaged.




Chancery Division.



Mr. Justice Tomlin
…
Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors
…
…
68


Mr. Justice Tomlin
…
Chairman of the University of London Commissioners
9




King's Bench Division.



Lord Chief Justice
…
War Compensation Court
…
…
19


Mr. Justice Swift
…
Certificate of Naturalization Committee
…
…
6

In addition to the foregoing, some of the Judges have sat on various Committees outside judicial hours.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PRISONERS (TREATMENT).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Federation of League of Nations Societies, at its plenary congress at Berlin in May, 1927, urging on the Assembly of the League of Nations the necessity of instituting an inquiry at the earliest possible moment, with a view to framing an international convention upon the conditions, including conditions of prison labour, to be observed in all civilised countries in the treatment of persons under arrest or in captivity: and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has asked me to reply. He has seen a copy of the resolution. The matter alluded to is engaging: the attention of the International Prison Commission and. as at present advised, he does not propose to take any action.

DISARMAMENT (PREPARATORY COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign

this House when a similar Motion is discussed.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the hon. and learned Member say whether it is not a fact that a Judge earns for the country in fees more than enough to pay his salary?

Following is the information:

Affairs what instructions have been given to our delegates with regard to the disarmament proposals of the Russian delegates at Geneva?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): No notice of the terms of the proposals put forward by the Soviet delegation was given before the opening meeting of the Preparatory Committee, and the British delegation, consequently, left this country without instructions on the subject. The work of the Preparatory Committee at its recent session was limited to setting up the Security Committee, and therefore no discussions took place on the Russian proposals.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the British delegates cable home to report this proposal and to ask for instructions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. and gallant Member must remember that the Committee sat for, I think, only four days, and it has been arranged that a Security Committee and a Disarmament Preparatory Committee shall sit within a very few weeks, and I take it that in that case these particular proposals will come under consideration.

Mr. DUFF COOPER: Are not His Majesty's Government well aware that the sole object of the Russian Government in putting forward these proposals was to bring the whole question of disarmament into ridicule?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that His Majesty's Government are going to give this proposal the consideration which its importance warrants?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That particular point is raised in a later question on the Paper.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received the proposals of the Russian Government regarding universal disarmament; whether the Government is considering these proposals; and if, in view of their importance, he can give an assurance that the British delegates at Geneva will not be authorised to negative them without an opportunity having been afforded for their discussion in the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. The text of the Russian declaration corresponds substantially with the telegraphed versions which have appeared in the Press. The Preparatory Committee decided that they could not at their recent session do more than organise the work of the Security Committee which they had been directed to constitute, and the question of sending instructions to the British representative did not therefore arise. The Russian proposals do not appear to have been regarded by the Committee as a practical and helpful contribution to the problem and there would accordingly be no advantage in discussing them in this House.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the Prime Minister state if his opinion on this question is the same as that of Lord Cushendun who disposed of these momentous proposals with the simple statement that they were out of order

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that statement, but of course, as my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, it will have to be considered when the Disarmament Conference meets.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Now that the Prime Minister has the proposals, which we have only seen in the Press, may I ask him whether it is a fact that Russia offered to lead the way in one year if we would follow in four years?

The PRIME MINISTER: When my right hon. Friend returns from Geneva, I shall have all the particulars.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, that he had received those proposals?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, we have had no official document of any kind yet in London.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYES, PORTSMOUTH.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 38.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of industrial employés in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, who belong to trade unions and the number who do not belong to trade unions; and whether, in order to secure uniformity in matters of representation, he will set up a separate committee for the benefit of non-trade unionists and thus secure for them an equal measure of representation with Whitley Councils?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available; apart from Whitley Councils, all employés or groups of employés, whether trade unionist or non-trade unionist, have the right to make representations to the Departmental officers and if necessary to the Admiralty concerning any matter relating to the conditions of their employment. As far as I know, no request from men in Portsmouth Dockyard who do not belong to trade unions for a separate committee has been made.

CABLE AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. OTHO NICHOLSON: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General if proposals are now being considered by the Government for protecting the State-owned and privately-
owned cables against wireless competition; and whether the payment of a subsidy by the taxpayer is being considered?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The question of cable and wireless communications is under consideration by His Majesty's Government and I can say nothing further at this stage.

Sir W. de FRECE: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the revenue of the Pacific cable has suffered any diminution through competition with the beam system of telegraphy; and whether any steps are being taken to increase the efficiency of the system of operating this cable?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The revenue of the Pacific Cable Board has undoubtedly suffered during the past year owing to the competition of the beam service and the lower rate it charges. The Pacific Cable Board are taking steps to effect economies in their administrative expenditure, and their experts are continuously engaged in improving the methods of working. I may add that the new cable is one of the most efficient in the world, having a capacity of about 1,200 letters a minute as against a maximum of about 260 on the old cable.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Is there any truth in the report that there is going to be a certain amount of co-operation between the cables and the beam system?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have no knowledge of the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that co-operation of that kind does not result in the public not getting the benefit of the cheapness of the beam system?

RUGBY WIBELESS STATION.

Mr. O. NICHOLSON: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General the total cost to date of the Rugby Wireless Station; the annual expenditure, including depreciation and amortisation of capital; and the total revenue for the last complete year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The total capital cost up to 31st March last of the Rugby Wireless Station, including
site, buildings and telegraph and telephone plant, was approximately £490,000. The telegraph services conducted at the station are only in an early stage of development, and the telephone services have not yet been running for a complete year. It is, therefore, difficult either to give accurate figures or to draw deductions from estimates. With this reservation, I estimate the present annual expenditure, including interest, depreciation and amortisation of capital, at about £123,000 and the annual revenue at about £57,000.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that this department of the telephone service is highly profitable?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have already told the House that the telephone service at present covers working costs, but not depreciation and amortisation.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL LEAVING AGE.)

Mr. SHEPHERD: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children who left school on attaining the age of 14 during the last educational school year?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Excluding those pupils who proceeded to secondary schools or other institutions for further full-time education, the number of pupils who left public elementary schools during the year ended 31st March, 1927, after attaining the age of 14 was 510,542. Of these, 63,958 had remained at school for a period after reaching the normal age of exemption.

CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).

Colonel DAY: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of troops at present stationed in or on their way to China?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): There are now nine battalions in China in addition to approximately half a battalion of marines and to the normal establishment of three battalions. No battalions are on their way to China.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is contemplated reducing the strength of this force in the near future?

Commodore KING: I can give no further information on this point.

MINISTRIES (REORGANISATION).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has yet come to a decision with regard to the Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Mines, and Department of Overseas Trade, respectively; and when he will be in a position to make a statement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 8th November.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that it is eight months since the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in this House the immediate abolition of these three Departments does it not seem extraordinary that eight months after we are not able to get a date when the decision will be given as to whether these Departments are going to be abolished or retained?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Member knows, it would require legislation.

Mr. MORRISON: May I ask whether the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer eight months ago that these three Departments were to be

United Kingdom.
Australia.
New Zealand.


42 per cent.
42 per cent.
16 per cent.

The annual shipments since the Nauru Island Agreement Act was passed have been as follow: —


—
United Kingdom.
Australia.
New Zealand.







Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


1920–21
…
…
…
…
16,784
265,127
17,066


1921–22
…
…
…
…
16,178
171,881
38,706


1922–23
…
…
…
…
—
202,979
51,965


1923–24
…
…
…
…
—
318,690
60,687


1924–25
…
…
…
…
—
336,800
99,508


1925–26
…
…
…
…
—
274,183
98,160


1926–27
…
…
…
…
—
(say) 464,825
(say) 130,000







32,962
2,034,485
496,092

abolished is still the policy of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 8th November.

NAURU AND OCEAN ISLANDS (PHOSPHATE ROCK).

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether any borings have been made to ascertain the total amount of phosphate rock available for shipment and the phosphate contents in the Nauru and Ocean islands; what is the proportion allotted to Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, respectively; and the annual shipment to each of these countries since the mandate was granted?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the reply to this question involves a considerable number of figures, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I understand that numerous borings have been made to ascertain the amount of phosphate rock available at Nauru and Ocean island and that it is estimated that these two islands (together) contain over 100,000,000 tons of phosphate (of a quality containing from 85 per cent. to 88 per cent. tribasic phosphate of lime).

Under the existing arrangements the three Governments are entitled to an allotment of the phosphate produced in each year in the following proportions:

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that some 400 ex-British civil servants in Southern Ireland are still waiting to retire, under Article 10 of the agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and the Irish Free State, but are unable to obtain the pensions to which they are entitled, as the compensation committee set up to hear their applications has not sat for some two years since Mr. Justice Wylie resigned the chairmanship; and whether, having regard to the delay in dealing with these ex-British civil servants' claims he will make representations to the Irish Free State in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 9th November to the right hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), to which I have nothing to add.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the Prime Minister recognise the special claims which these men have that the British Government should look after their interests, considering that they were British Government servants, and will the right hon. Gentleman say if anything can be done to expedite the settlement of their claims?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will refer to the reply which I have given to this question, he will see that the whole matter is under consideration.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 57.
asked the Prime Minister how many ex-service men are now resident in the Irish Free State; and what steps are being taken by the Government to co-operate in efforts for the amelioration of the conditions under which a number of these men now live?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I have no definite information. As regards the second part, assistance in various directions has been given by His Majesty's
Government from time to time to ex-service men in the Irish Free State, and is, indeed, still being given. It would be difficult within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to supply full particulars, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know the precise points on which he desires to obtain detailed information, I shall, of course, be glad to help him as far as possible.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Could they be brought under the assisted passages scheme for the Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have said.

FRANCHISE LAW.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of including in any Bill that provides for votes for women at 21 years of age Clauses ensuring that no person in receipt of any sort of public relief shall be entitled to vote?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have repeatedly announced, it would be premature to make any statement on this subject at present. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 14th November to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is probably more demand for the reform stated in the second part of this question than for that stated in the first part?

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he now intends to introduce legislation next year for the alteration of the constitution of, or other reform of, the House of Lords?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 21st November in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth).

PEERESSES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in considering legislation to equalise the political position of men and women, he is considering the position, as hereditary legislators, of peeresses in their own right?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

NATIVE JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Act for the indenturing of native juveniles in Southern Rhodesia has received His Majesty's formal assent; whether notification of this assent was made by the Governor by speech or message to the legislative bodies or by Proclamation in the Gazette; and, if so, on what date?

The PRIME MINISTER: The notification that it was His Majesty's pleasure not to disallow the Southern Rhodesia Native Juveniles Employment Act, 1926, was made by a Proclamation of the Governor dated the 16th June last, and published in the Southern Rhodesia Government Gazette.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Prime Minister aware that this means that within the British Empire slavery of little children is being permitted?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This refers to a part of the Empire which has its own Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely, this question, dealing with native affairs in Rhodesia, is one that is subject to the action of the Government of this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that this recent development in Southern Rhodesia, due very largely to the preference given to Empire-grown tobacco, is in the interests of British traditions?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question, I think, which lends itself to debate. The next question will afford an opportunity for asking the questions which the right hon. and gallant Gentle-
man the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) desire to raise.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Southern Rhodesia, as in other parts of Africa, children are always regarded by the natives as an asset instead of a liability?

Mr. AMMON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that he has sanctioned legislation for the indenture of children in Southern Rhodesia, his attention has been drawn to the fact that numbers of young children are employed in the mica mines; whether he has received and considered the most recent Report of the Chief Native Commissioner, in which this official states that the mica mineowners and farmers have cut wages to the lowest possible limit; and whether, in view of these facts, he will invite the Southern Rhodesia Government to submit a Report upon the whole question of child employment in Southern Rhodesia?

The PRIME MINISTER: According to a Report recently received from the Southern Rhodesia Government, the estimated number of native juveniles employed on the mica mines is approximately 300, out of a total labour complement of 800 natives. These are all boys, and the majority of them are children of natives living in the district where the mines are situated, and in most instances their parents or guardians are employed on the same mine. These native juveniles are all voluntary employés, and are engaged on a monthly basis. Their ages range from 10 to 15 years. No juveniles are employed underground or on work involving heavy manual labour. The Southern Rhodesia Government have the mines inspected periodically, and are satisfied that the conditions under which these juveniles work are comfortable and hygienic, and that they are well housed and fed.

Mr. AMMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a Report made by the Native Commissioner to the Rhodesian Assembly, in which the Native Commissioner condemns this, and says that the reason is that the sweated wages paid to adult labour have driven adults away, and child slave labour is being used?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be much better that this matter should be dealt with in Debate rather than by question and answer. If my memory serves me, the Report is dated some little time back, before the time when these arrangements were made, and, as the hon. Member has asked these questions, I think it is only fair to state that the employment of juveniles was entirely uncontrolled and uncontrollable until this Act was passed. Under this Act, the Native Commissioners have power to prohibit the employment of juveniles wherever such employment is contrary to the interests of the juveniles. The matter is one which, I think, should be debated in this House at some time, because there is a great deal to be said on both sides.

Mr. AMMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a Report for the year 1926,and that it was only printed in 1927, by command of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite true: I am quite familiar with the Report; I have been studying it this morning. The Report deals with a period antecedent to the period when this Act, with all its Regulations, came into force. This Act has gone a considerable distance in getting control over what hitherto has been subject to no control at all.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the minimum age at which children can be indentured under this law?

The PRIME MINISTER: I speak with out full knowledge of these technical terms in the Dominions and Colonies, but this is not, as I understand the word, indentured labour—

Sir R.HAMILTON: I beg pardon: I mean apprenticed.

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer the question without notice.

ROBERT SAMBO (DEPORTATION).

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will ascertain the nature of the activities which, in the opinion of the Southern Rhodesian Government, were likely to cause unrest among the native community and which led to the deportation of Robert Sambo; whether he will cause inquiries to be
made as to the grounds upon which it was decided to deport to Portuguese territory a native with a British domicile; and whether he will obtain information as to the endeavours which are being made in Southern Rhodesia to prevent the organisation of natives in trade unions?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question relates to matters entirely within the discretion of the Southern Rhodesia Government, and for this reason I cannot undertake to make further inquiries on the subject.

Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions has not put forward this defence on previous occasions,. and that this question would not have appeared on the Paper but for the fact that the reply from the Under-Secretary was marked "Confidential," and could not be used?

BRITISH ARMY (PAY AND ALLOWANCES, CEYLON).

Brigadier-General WARNER: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the possibility of any steps being taken to rectify the grievance of officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers stationed at Ceylon, who now receive their pay and allowances in sterling at the stabilised rate of exchange, 1s. 6d. to the rupee, instead of at the original rate, 15 rupees to the £l, on which the pay and allowances were calculated?

Commodore KING: My hon. and gallane Friend is under a misapprehension. The rates of pay of the British Army are on the same basis in all parts of the world, and allowances in Ceylon are fixed in rupees and have no reference to the rate of exchange. But the allowances received by officers and other ranks at that station are at present under consideration, and the rates of exchange and other factors affecting the cost of living will be taken into account in this connection.

ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTHEAST ENGLAND.

Mr. OTHO NICHOLSON: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that
a large number of the electricity undertakers affected by the South-East England electricity scheme have represented to the Central Electricity Board that certain provisions of the scheme are ultra vires; and whether, in view of this, he will urge upon the Board the necessity of making some announcement as to the procedure proposed by the Board in respect of the scheme?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am not aware of the details of the representations which have been made to the Central Electricity Board on the Electricity Scheme for South-East England prepared by the Electricity Commissioners; but I understand that the Board are considering the scheme and the representations in accordance with their statutory duty, and are at present engaged in discussing these representations individually with the undertakers.

—
1924.
1925.
1926.


Imports of wheat meal and flour:







Consigned from—
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


France
…
…
2,971
3,181
7,369


United States of America
…
…
180,400
138,025
136,638


Argentine Republic
…
…
15,269
20,488
39,673


Other Foreign Countries
…
…
8,114
6,670
12,594


Total from Foreign Countries
…
…
206,754
168,364
196,274


Australia
…
…
81,445
74,374
64,502


Canada
…
…
262,292
210,607
269,230


Other British Countries
…
…
1,802
2,286
3,048


Total from British Countries
…
…
345,539
287,267
336,780


Total imports of wheat meal and flour
…
…
552,293
455,631
533,054


Total imports of wheat (grain)
…
…
5,871,026
4,842,709
4,812,802


Approximate grain equivalent of imports:







(a) Of meal and flour
…
…
767,100
632,800
740,400


(b) Of meal, flour and grain
…
…
6,638,100
5,475,500
5,553,200


Proportion per cent. of (a) to (b)
…
…
11.6
11.6
13.3


The grain equivalent of imported meal and flour has been estimated on the basis of an extraction of 72 per cent. flour and 28 per cent. offals.


The country of growth of the grain from which imported flour was ground may, in some cases, have been different from the country from which the flour was consigned to the United Kingdom.

MILLING OFFALS.

Mr. CHRISTIE: asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of wheat offals manufactured in this

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 2nd December.]

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to make grants out of unemployment fund towards cost of approved courses of instruction.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the payment out of the unemployment fund of grants towards expenses incurred in respect of the attendances at approved courses of instructions of the persons to whom this Section applies.

(2) This Section applies to persons who have attained the age of sixteen years and are under the age of eighteen and either—

(a) are insured persons required by the insurance officer to attend such courses; or
(b) not being persons so required are, in the opinion of the Minister, persons normally employed, or likely to be employed, in an insurable occupation.

(3) Grants under this Section shall not exceed fifty per cent. of any amount which may be paid in respect of the attendances in question out of the moneys provided by Parliament.

(4) All sums paid out of the unemployment fund under this Section shall be applied as an appropriation in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the expenses of the Minister, and the provisions of this Sub-section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of Section 12 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1920, as amended by Section eight of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922.

(5) In this Section the expression "approved" mea s approved for the purposes of paragraph (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act.—[Sir A. 8teel-Maitland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause embodies the undertaking which I gave on a previous occasion. It enables grants to be made from the Unemployment Fund for the purpose of juvenile unemployment centres. These grants are to be limited to the equivalent of the amount that is ultimately provided
by the Treasury under the Estimates for the year. They are to be given to the juvenile unemployment centres in respect of boys and girls of 16 and 17 who are in insured trades, or are likely to go into insured trades, or are otherwise qualified for unemployment benefit. The second provision is necessary, because obviously there are some boys and girls of 16 who are either in an insured trade or likely to enter into it who might not be qualified for benefit, but who, it would be desirable, should attend unemployment centres. We cannot insist that boys and girls of 16 and, IV who are not otherwise qualified for benefit should attend, but at any rate we wish to be able to make provision for them should it be possible to persuade them to attend. On the other hand, where they are entitled to benefit, then it would be a condition of the receipt of benefit that they should attend a juvenile unemployment centre where it is provided. The payment out of the fund is a matter of principle of some importance, and a good many persons have doubts whether it is wise to use the Unemployment Fund for any other purpose whatsoever except the payment of benefit. There is a great deal of reason for that hesitation and reluctance. I rather think the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) shares it, but I am not at all sure. At any rate, there is reluctance to use it and not to make provision directly out of the Exchequer alone.

Miss BONDFIELD: I want to get it from both sources.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At any rate, this Clause provides that it can be got from both sources. But there is a good deal of reason for such reluctance. In any case, this particular form of payment from the Unemployment Fund toward juvenile unemployment centres stands by itself. On the last occasion when the question came before the Committee, I said that I regarded it as entirely different in principle from using the Unemployment Fund either to subsidise wages or to -make payment towards unemployment schemes or any of the kindred objects with regard to which suggestions have sometimes been made that it should be used, and when I said that, I think there was universal assent from all sides of the
Committee that the use of the Unemployment Fund for other purposes than the cash payment of benefit is very undesirable as a general principle but that this case stood quite by itself and would not afford a precedent for any other extension. That I say because I think it is desirable that that point should be made clear.
May I say a word or two on the nature of the courses which it is proposed to set up at these unemployment centres. The whole object of them is, in brief, to keep the boys and girls who attend them fit and interested. It is just to preserve their industrial character. It is not intended to teach any of them trades. It would not be correct for a moment to think that these centres can be used for vocational training; that is impossible. For training of that kind, you want in the first place to have attendance for some consecutive period. It is impossible to train a boy to be a mechanic or to train a girl in skilled work without there being some continued attendance for a certain length of time, and one essential feature of centres of this kind is that boys and girls are in and out from day to day, or with only a few days of attendance. In the second place, if it were a question of education in the ordinary sense of the word, technical training or an ordinary course at evening schools, that would be a matter particularly for the educational authorities. From both those points of view, the juvenile unemployment centre is not a place where boys and girls can get vocational or technical training. It is a place where they can go, and ought to go, in order to keep their industrial character, to preserve their nimbleness of brain and hand and keep them fit and interested.

Mr. HARRIS: Is there any maximum or minimum time required? Can they go in for a week and come out, or must they stay for a minimum period?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is just the point. Where they are qualified for benefit, they come in as a condition of getting benefit. They can leave again as soon as they get a job, and the whole essence of the system is that they may be in and out. Where juvenile employment is brisk, as it is in most places, they will turn over very rapidly—only a
few days probably. I ought to say again that, if it were a question of trying to put the fund to uses for which it was not properly designed, I should feel bound to oppose any such Clause. But a grant for this very proper but quite peculiar kind of work is not a precedent for any other use of the fund.
I ought, perhaps, to say a few words as to the scope and utility of juvenile unemployment centres. It is only one part of a very much wider activity. The problem, when boys or girls leave school, is how to make the best of them after leaving school in order to help them face their industrial life. The first point of importance is to see that they can get the most suitable occupations, to give them advice as far as possible, so that the jobs they can try for, and the jobs that can be found for them, will be those that are most suited to them. The next thing in importance is, as far as possible, to look after them a bit afterwards where their family is not able to do so and to give them a certain amount of advice where necessary. It is only in the third place, when they have been in a job and got out of it, that you want to pick them up and keep them busy and occupied until they get into another job again. Therefore, these juvenile unemployment centres are really only one part of a great sphere of activity. The first part of what I said is the most important without any question; namely, giving boys and girls as far as possible the best advice on leaving school. This is already being done on a large scale. In London, for example, practically every boy and girl who leaves school is given advice as to future occupation. Throughout the whole country they are given advice by committees acting either under the Ministry of Labour or under the local education authority according to the nature of the case. There are juvenile advisory committees under the Ministry of Labour or sub-committees of local education authorities.
The two systems have grown side by side. They are nominally different, but, if anyone got into one of these Committees, he would not be able to tell which it really was from the actual composition of it. Local teachers and other individuals interested in the work are the people who largely give advice to boys and girls on leaving school.
London is completely covered, and I should think that about 30 per cent. of all the boys and girls in the country get advice of this kind in some way or another. In a few of the provincial towns the standard is as high or nearly as high as in London; in Birmingham, for example, I think, it is 100 per cent. I am not certain whether it is quite as high in any other town, but, at any rate, it ranges from a very high standard to a good deal lower one, and we are doing our best to raise it throughout the country. Secondly, in addition to this there are Care Committees, in some cases looking after these boys and girls at school, but in other cases formed in order to keep in touch with them after they leave school, and that again is valuable. I only mention this so that the Committee may realise the proportions of our present proposal.
Juvenile Unemployment Centres get hold of the boys or girls who are unemployed and try and preserve their characters. But they are only part of a wider activity which has been growing into a very useful one. The whole of the problem is shortly to be investigated by a National Advisory Council that is being formed. I think that the mention of the National Council by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Beading Debate was greeted with a certain amount of incredulity. It does not deserve incredulity at all. It means that for the first time teachers, employers, workers' representatives, and other people who have taken an interest in this problem of boys and girls in all the different aspects of their lives, are coming together in order to try and consider the problem as a whole.

Mr. COVE: Has it actually been constituted?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The constitution of the Council has actually been settled. Invitations to serve are going out, and the object of the Committee, when it has been set up, is to try and bring together all these different forms of activity so as to try and make what was rather a disordered state of affairs before, without close connection one with another, into an ordered whole, as part of which I propose this Clause this afternoon.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman talks of giving these young people instruction, is it intended to provide food for them at these centres in view of the very low state of physical fitness of many of these children?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is not. Food is not necessarily to he pro vided at these centres. What we provide is drill, a certain amount of carpentering, a certain amount of gymnastics of an elementary kind for boys and girls—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Needlework for girls.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A certain amount of needlework for girls, a little clerical work. But the particular form of activity is not so important as is the main object which is to keep nimbleness of brain and hands together.

Mr. HARRIS: We have had an interesting announcement, but it is an example of the Government, as usual, doing the right thing in a very wrong way. The whole Committee, and, I think, the whole country, are agreed as to the desirability of young men and young women out of work being properly trained, and keeping up their industrial skill. The first objection I have to the scheme—an objection I made when it was foreshadowed on a previous occasion—is that some form of education is to be paid for out of the Insurance Fund. Education is the business of the Board of Education, and it is Board of Education, who take a large view and understand the problem, that should he responsible both for the scheme and for its administration. Here we have a makeshift, patchwork scheme which is really going to add very little to the industrial skill of young people. It is not going specially to help them, is thoroughly amateur in spirit, is not by any means to be universal throughout the country, and, what is very much worse, the cost is to come out of a fund that, at any rate, at the present time cannot really afford to meet it, and that does not possess a financial equilibrium. Not only from the educational point of view should we view this scheme with suspicion, hut as custodians, as trustees of a fund subscribed to by insured persons, we should look at it very critically.
We thank the Government for small mercies. We ought to be grateful that the Government have at last admitted their responsibility for these young people. They recognise the principle, as they were forced to do under the terms of the Blanesbrough Report, but, although they are accepting the letter of the Report, they are by no means carrying out the spirit of it. On the contrary, this scheme carries us very little further. The Minister talked about the "ins" and "outs." He talked about them very glibly, as though it was not really a very serious problem. The tragedy of these young people is that they are "in" and "out." They get out of work, they go to one of these centres, they achieve no further industrial skill, they then go out to work again for a few weeks, only to come back again into these centres to learn nothing. The State will have to change its attitude, for this is, after all, the most burning and serious of all the unemployed problems. It is the manufacture of unemployables. That is what is going on under our very eyes in all parts of the country. The tragedy of it is that there is a market for young people of 14 to 16 years of age. In London there is no difficulty at all. Boys and girls get employment at fair wages from 14, but at 16 they have no industrial skill, and they come into the labour market and become —the Minister seems to think it is not a serious question—ins and outs. It is very poor compensation to us to know that they will now be getting gymnastics—

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to correct the hon. Member. I cannot have made myself clear. I did not say the boy or girl was continually in and out; on the contrary, there is a very small percentage of unemployment among boys of 16. But when they do get out of work, it may be after months of employment, they are probably only out of work a day or two.

Mr. HARRIS: There is not so much unemployment between 14 and 16, as there is between 16 and 21. That is the serious question, and as you get nearer the age of 21, the percentage of unemployment increases. From 14 to 16 everybody knows that they are usually employed. Some go out at 16, but only too often when they reach the age of 17 they are out of work with no industrial skill
and are of no real value to the industrial organisation of the country. They have been doing entirely unskilled work. Many of them in London are page boys, van boys, sometimes earning quite good incomes, but when they get to the age of adolescence or early manhood they have acquired very little knowledge as a result of what should be industrial training but which really is only cheap labour as a substitute for adult labour.
4.0 p.m.
My view is that we should not accept this half-way scheme, but we should recognise and insist that this problem of the need of technical skill in industry has to be faced, and the only way to face it is by the machinery of education, under the control of the Board of Education and the local authorities. Less and less is there a demand for unskilled labour. That is really the root of our unemployment problem. Less and less every year is physical strength required; more and more every year are technical knowledge and technical requirements becoming necesary. I can give dozens of instances in London. Take one instance which has been brought to my special attention. The London County Council, a year or two ago, in its desire to help the unemployment problem, agreed to make very substantial grants for the making of roads outside the area of London. It did so, not so much in the interests of those roads, which were outside their area, but in order to help the unemployed, particularly the unskilled, who form a very large percentage of the unemployed. When we got to work, the number of individuals actually employed was comparatively small, the reason being, of course, that a great deal of the work was done by the mechanical digger.
There is another instance of the local authorities who have been spending a large sum of money in repairing roads partly because the road repairs were required, and partly to help the unemployed. Anyone who sees a road being constructed in these days will notice a large part of the work being done by the mechanical drill, a very up-to-date machine, to work which requires a highly skilled craftsman. That is the problem of the unemployed; that is the problem of training which this scheme does not in any way attempt to touch, and it is a
very serious thing for the Minister to come forward at this stage and ask the Committee to dip into the depleted funds of unemployment insurance, and ask them to find cash in order to help oh what is really a rotten scheme, which is not going seriously to solve the unemployment problem one tiny little bit.
I referred the other day, and I do not mind referring again, to the contrast with what they are doing in Germany. The German people either do a thing properly or not at all. They are facing this thing scientifically; they are realising that industry is changing. They find out, when one trade is depressed, whether there is likely to be a demand in another industry for trained labour. If an industry is depressed, as the cotton trade is all over the world, they set about training some of the young persons from 17 to 21 for another industry, and they are doing that very successfully. I saw machinery for doing that actually at work in Leipzig, and I saw thousands of young lads and girl being trained in other industries, while they were actually employed, with the likelihood of their being thrown on the industrial scrap-heap, so that when they reached an age at which they were no longer required in that trade they could go into another craft as partly trained men and women.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many hours of training they did per week while they were at work?

Mr. HARRIS: I can tell the hon. Member exactly. Every young person throughout Germany has to do a minimum, if unskilled, of four hours per week training, or, if skilled, of apprentice standard of training, of six hours out of the employers' time, and while receiving full wages. Right throughout Germany they have compulsory continuation schools up to 18 years of age out of the employers' time and at the employers' expense. It is no makeshift system. These centres are thoroughly equipped by the State with the latest appliances, and, of course, are very closely linked up with the industrial system. Some hon. Member above the Gangway do not like the idea of vocational training. Whether it be good or bad, Germany is actively going on with it. When these young people are out of
work they are drafted into continuation schools for extra training for extra hours, and are paid wages or kept—I an? not quite sure which—but they are actually kept at the expense of the State in some form or other. Meanwhile they are acquiring industrial skill, and after a few months they are very quickly absorbed in the industrial organisation. My view is, that if the Ministry of Labour is satisfied that young people out of work are not likely to be absorbed permanently into any craft, it would be perfectly justifiable to insist, as a condition of benefit, that they should attend continuation schools, not for two or three weeks, but for three or four months—a period long enough to enable them to get industrial skill, so that when they grow up they should become part of the national system of wealth producers. That is my view, for what it is worth. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. Does the hon. Member opposite think it is a good thing to manufacture thousands of unskilled workers who are not required by the community? Is it not a long-sighted view to recognise that unskilled labour is not required to the same extent that it was 20 or 30 years ago? At any rate, if we are going to do this, let us do it properly, scientifiically and educationally. Do not let us have a sort of patchwork quilt, which is going to do nothing for anybody and is going to rob the Insurance Fund. As far as I am concerned, I am going to vote against this new Clause.

Miss BONDFIELD: I feel that here again we are plunged into the methods of the watertight compartment, and that it is futile to try to deal with this question in this piecemeal fashion. Surely the Committee had a right to expect from the Minister a statement of Government policy which, though probably outside the four corners of the Bill, would have enabled us to understand what part in the general scheme this was going to play. Here is the position. The Minister has told us that they are setting up juvenile employment centres, attendance at which will be made a condition of receiving benefit on the part of young persons from 16 to 18 years of age. Why that particular age only? Why cannot we have enough imagination to see that what is needed for our young people to-day is that the work which is developing in con-
nection with the elementary schools should be carried straight on without a break during the whole period of adolescence and young manhood and young womanhood until they can be safely launched on an independent career? It would not cost any more money in the long run, but infinitely less to the nation, if we could get some kind of co-ordinated scheme in which it would require three Ministries at least, and probably more, to act in unison in a properly thought-out scheme. The Ministries of Education, Labour and Agriculture are now making some contribution, but we find in some districts two or three things happening, and in another nothing happening. There is no real co-ordination in those three Departments, and no suggestion of harmony and co-ordination in the Clause which this Committee is asked to consider.
We have that tragic group from 14 to 16 years of age, which is shut out from the automatic registration which the Unemployment Insurance Fund gives. We have there an unknown quantity. Nobody really knows what is happening to those children. A few come under the control of the Education Department or the Ministry of Labour juvenile unemployment centres. They drift in and out, but there is very little information about them. The group from 16 to 18 is not industrially a group that can be taken by itself. There are the young people of 15 and of 19 and 20. They are exactly in the same position as the boys and girls of 17, drifting about and not having any proper training. Yet here is a scheme proposed which cuts it off at both ends, and makes no attempt whatever to build up a system of centres of training which will meet the needs of those groups from school age until at least 21.
I want to urge upon the attention of the Committee the fact that this Clause does not in any way fulfil the proposals laid down in the Blanesburgh Report. The proposals in the Blanesburgh Report were, of necessity, not precise, because, as a matter of fact, it was outside our terms of reference, but I do beg the Committee to remember that we were so impressed with the condition of the country as it reflected itself in the lives of thi6 group under 21, that these suggestions were made. It will be noticed that the words used in the Report in regard to the
Insurance Fund were, "if necessary out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund." Why did we put those words in? We felt so urgently the need of doing something for these young people, that it was felt that if there were no other way the Ministry should have power to give grants at once—not five or 10 years hence. We hoped something might be done at once to grapple with this terrible problem of the adolescent and the young man and young woman, and that if there were no quicker way of doing it thoroughly, a proportion of the contributions paid by these young people to the Insurance Fund should be spent in centres where they would have a proper supervision, and where they would have as much training as the time would allow in those centres.

There is one remark which the Minister made to-day in response to an interjection which has filled me with dismay. He stated that there is no intention of providing meals at these day centres. I ask the Committee to recognise that as a very foolish omission from the arrangement. The meal has a great educational value. No one who has been, for example, in the Walker Hostel in Newcastle, which provides a very interesting experiment, without being immensely impressed by the value of that experiment in training. There the meal is a part of the general curriculum. Boys have gone there after having knocked about from pillar to post, and they begin to develop almost immediately as the result of having meals at regular times every day under proper conditions. It is not merely a question of good manners and general development, but of their outlook on life, and this good meal I regard as an essential part of any training scheme during periods of such desperate unemployment as we have at the present time. There are other experiments going on about which the Minister appears to be absolutely ignorant for all the information given to this Committee in regard to coordination. I do not know whether he is aware of what some of his colleagues are doing, the Ministry of Agriculture, for instance, in connection with what are called young farmers' clubs. I know it is in a different category, but I say that there is a heap of room for extension of the idea of young farmers' clubs. They are educational in the very best sense of the word. They are helping in those areas
which will provide a certain amount of difficulty for the right hon. Gentleman, those village areas and small town areas where, it may be, the ordinary juvenile centres will be a difficult thing to organise. It would not be at all difficult to organise the kind of valuable work which is represented by the young farmers' clubs.
I was immensely impressed with such work in Canada, where the young people at a very early age are encouraged to o take an interest in growing things, in live stock, in work which is going to be a help to them generally in their future lives, by exhibiting at fairs, flower shows, poultry shows, and so on, where they can take a real live interest in some form of work which will keep them in the country-side. In scattered areas in this country, where boys or girls are out of work, although they might be outside an insurance scheme, something might be done on these lines, because we must bear in mind that these young people are most valuable potentialities for this country. I was very much impressed with something that happened in Sussex, and I will use this as an illustration of the lack of imagination on the part of the Ministry of Labour in their outlook upon the problem to-day. In Sussex one found a club of boys and girls, of quite a young age, who were encouraged to form a club and to go in for poultry keeping and the growing of things, vegetables, flowers, and so on. This happened in a district where, owing to intermarriage and in-breeding, there was a very high percentage of mentally defective children; but owing to the tremendous interest aroused in the children by the new work they were encouraged to do, and the interesting way in which the work was presented to them, these young boys and girls were able to go to the show and beat their fathers and uncles in regard to the product of their labour.
What we have to do is to try to find some system which we can graft on to our present system, a system of a more universal kind, adapted to the needs of the various areas of urban life, city life, rural life, and small town life, and to use such a system for any number of useful purposes which it ought to be possible to introduce to meet the needs of
the particular districts, all of them having this central purpose, that they should be schemes in which the young people can he gathered in, where there is no work at the moment for them to do, and where they can be assisted to widen their mental activities and strengthen their physical powers and generally be made more alert and alive by their experience than before they entered into training. In this connection, may I direct attention to the way in which we have been hampered in our work in the training centres? We have had since 1914 classes for young women, about which nothing has been said other than the statement made by the Minister the other night. These young women belong to a group upon which the Blanesburgh Committee placed as much importance as upon the juvenile group, except that they could not see how to make it compulsory in connection with girls over 18. The necessity for training these young women was borne in upon the Committee just as strongly if not more strongly than in the case of the younger people.
Nothing whatever touches these young women in the Clause which we are asked to consider this afternoon. On the contrary, the whole policy of the Ministry has been to damp clown and to repress and to make less effective the work that has been done, the salvage work in connection with the young people, the young women in particular. Let me present certain figures to the Committee in connection with the training centres for young women. We knew, as everybody knows, that the one branch of the community in which there is still some degree of demand for labour is that of domestic work. In spite of the fact that we have evidence that this demand still exists, here are the figures which I have to present to-the Committee. Under the machinery provided through the Ministry of Labour in the period 1924–25—the year runs from May to April—we were allowed to expand our work so as to be able to train 8,720 girls in the year. In the year 1925–26, the period of contraction began, and we were only allowed to train 6,377. In 1926–27 we were again cut down and were only able to train 3,466. In 1927–28, the current year, we have been cut down to the training of. 2,500, although the demand is just as great as ever it was for these training centres, and the Minis-
ter has announced that for 1928–29 we are only to be allowed places for the same number of trainees, namely, 2,500. That is the very worst way of trying to meet the emergency with which we are faced to-day. Take the South Wales area alone. In 1926–27 we were able to provide 13 courses for 432 women in that distressed area. In 1927–28 we were cut down to seven courses for 210 women. South Wales is one of the great areas from which domestic servants have been drawn for generations. It is a place where there are tremendous supplies and where training centres are specially needed. I could give many other instances, but I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee.
I do urge, although it may be hopeless to do so, that in my opinion and in the opinion of hon. Members who sit on these benches, this Clause is utterly inadequate to deal with the situation with which we are faced. It is a miserable disappointment to me personally that no greater attempt has been made to co-ordinate the activities of the Departments to which I have referred, and that we have no real pronouncement of policy on this question for dealing with it in a technical, practical and scientific way. These training centres for young women could be made part of a comprehensive scheme and are just as necessary as is the provision for the boys and girls who will be going into the juvenile centres. It is merely a question of trying to co-ordinate the efforts of those bodies who are doing a bit here, a bit there, and a bit somewhere else, which is more expensive than a thoroughly coordinated scheme would be. The question has not been settled in a big enough way. I am not speaking as a member of any party, because I believe there are members in all parties who are deeply concerned about these young people. I would ask the Committee and the House to take this matter up not as a party question but as a subject of vital importance to the well-being of this country in the next generation. The price is going to be paid not to-day or to-morrow, but 20 years hence when the children and young people of to-day will be the men and women upon whom the country will have to depend. I cannot but express my deep regret and disappointment that the Minister has not dealt with this matter in a more thorough manner.

Mr. EDMUND WOOD: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has been a little hard on the Minister. In conjunction with other hon. Members on this side, I have put down a Clause which goes a great deal further than the Clause we are now discussing, but I do think the Minister has taken a step in the right direction and I should like to thank him for recognising the principle of providing money out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for vocational training purposes. Having said that, I would like to emphasise some of the points made by other hon. Members in regard to the question of vocational training. It is a question of paramount importance. Everybody knows that at this moment, particularly in the heavy industries, there are pools of what may be called surplus labour which have been formed of persons, whether young, middle-aged or old, who are finding it increasingly difficult to get permanent employment. It is equally true to say that other industries even in the vicinity of these depressed industries are showing signs of great prosperity and expansion. Obviously, it is very difficult for married men with family responsibilities, and in view of the housing difficulties and domestic troubles of a similar character, to seek employment in new areas, but in the case of young people the position is quite different, and I do ask the Minister to bear that in mind and to give these young people whether of the ages from 16 to 18 or from 18 to 21 a chance by means of training of leaving the stricken areas and going to other areas where their prospects will not only be brighter at the moment but will be very much brighter in the future.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The speeches from the Opposition remind me very much of the old saying: "Beware of the Greeks when they bring gifts." Such criticism certainly seems very much like "Looking a gift horse in the mouth." I am a little diffident in offering a few words of comment against the proposal in the New Clause. It seems to me that we are getting into some difficulty over this matter. Hon. Members have pointed out the value of training, with which we all agree, but the proposal made in the New Clause, as I understand the scheme outlined by the Minister, has nothing to do with training. It is, in fact, swallowing  holus bolus the scheme outlined by
the Labour party before the Blanesburgh Committee. Their recommendations in regard to persons under 18 years of age registered as unemployed included the following:
We should like to see provision made for indoor and outdoor games and gym nastics, both for boys and girls. In addition, there might be facilities for handiwork of various kinds and for cookery. The centre should be made for the time being a branch library.
The Minister did not mention that. A very interesting suggestion is that:
Books might be read aloud as well as by the individual members of the centre. There might also be a volunteer service which would provide music, lantern lectures and cinema exhibitions. Where facilities exist it would be advisable for refreshments to be provided.
Those were the suggestions put forward, and from what the Minister has put forward it would seem that he is prepared to bring some of these suggestions into effect. Of course, the Minister did not mention refreshments; but all things come to those who wait. He did mention a question which is of vital importance in such matters, and that is the cost upon the Fund. He said that it would be equivalent to the Treasury grant for the year. I do not know that that is a static amount, and I think the Committee is entitled to have some further explanation by the right hon. Gentleman. He observed that one of the most important functions now being performed by various Committees was the giving of the best advice possible to boys and girls when they leave school. We are all liable to be given much advice, but I wonder how much of that good advice is carried into effect by the boys and girls who are leaving school.
It seems to me that we are going along a rather slippery path which has nothing to do with the Unemployment Fund or with the Minister of Labour, and I am sorry that the Minister should have found it necessary to move this New Clause at all. He might take the advice of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who tells us of the dangers of a pauper nation. There is one important recommendation, which I have not read, in the proposals of the Labour party before the Blanesburgh Committee. It is to be found in the last sentence of paragraph 80:
The success of the centre "—
This is something like what the Minister has outlined—
would depend primarily on the personality of the superintendent, for the centre would be attended by all and sundry of the unemployed under 18, and its administration would need to combine sympathy with firmness.
That is, of course, the truest thing that could possibly be said. We must remember that even to-day there are forces at work in the community which do fulfil some of these functions. I would ask the Committee to remember, and no one knows it better than the Minister, the extraordinary good work that is being done by all sorts of public-spirited people in various parts of the country in connection with boys' clubs and girls' clubs; and the public service that we have seen during the last 10 years which received its rededication on Saturday last—I refer to Toe H. There is the great work done by the Boy Scouts organisation, the Girl Guides organisation and the cadet battalions, and when the Minister of Labour speaks of drill and gymnastics as one of the functions of these courses of instruction it seems to me that the instrument is there to his hand. Since this matter was last mentioned in the House I have spoken to many people who are interested in this social work, and they see a certain risk to that work if the Minister adopts a rather half-baked scheme of this sort, which to a certain extent would have to be under official supervision. We are not sure as to the combination of sympathy and firmness which one receives from Government officials. I hope, therefore, the Minister will consider this matter, let us know what the cost is going to be, and whether he has thought out the possibility of making use of the existing organisations I have mentioned in order to develop the plan in his own mind to deal with this very difficult problem.
We all admit that it is a difficult problem, and I am trying to make the point that it requires serious consideration unless we are to find ourselves administratively, and from the point of view of the boys and girls, in a far worse position than we are to-day. I should like him to make a little clearer the provision in Sub-section (2) (a):
are insured persons required by the insurance officer to attend such courses;
Does that mean that it is going to be compulsory, or is there to be a certain discretion on the part of the insurance officer. I am sorry to have to offer a criticism of a scheme which I have no doubt is well intended and which is being so well received by hon. Members opposite. That alone makes some of us suspicious.

Viscountess ASTOR: Not at all.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Of course, when we make statements of that kind we always have to exclude the Noble Lady. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be quite certain that it is always wise to accept proposals which are so nearly akin to those put forward by his opponents.

Mr. COVE: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that he is very much mistaken as to the attitude of the party on these benches to the present proposals. Many of us consider that they can only be described as mere tinkering with a grave national problem. There is no conception shown as to the quantity or quality of the problem with which we have to deal, and, as a matter of fact, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to show us wherein this scheme differs from that already in existence, except that it takes money out of the Insurance Fund. Juvenile unemployment centres can be set up now under the present provisions, and these proposals give no further powers to enlarge their scope or make them more stable and continuous than they are at the present time. The Minister, with a certain amount of pride, mentioned the establishment of the National Advisory Committee. I have been rather interested in that Committee; I am glad it has been set up. But what I cannot see is this, what can this National Advisory Committee do when juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16 years are not cared for by any Ministry at all? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this National Advisory Committee would survey the whole of the problem. How can it do that when there is no record at all of the number of children, no record as to how they are employed, and no record as to the numbers who are unemployed 1 I consider that these juvenile unemployment centres can perform very little in the way of construc-
tive education work. They may take boys and girls off the streets at certain times, but they cannot perform the work that is necessary so far as education and industry are concerned. One of the great problems in education, as in industry, is to see how industry and education can combine and serve each other; what contribution education can make towards the technical efficiency of the children, and what use can industry make of the schools provided for technical efficiency. These proposals do nothing at all to meet that problem. As a matter of fact, in Sub-section (2, b) it says:
Not being persons so required are, in the opinion of the Minister, persons normally employed, or likely to be employed, in an insurable occupation.
That means that when they are not receiving unemployment insurance benefit the unemployment centres will be open to them. How many youths does the right hon. Gentleman expect to attend the. juvenile unemployment centres under those conditions?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: Quite a considerable number.

Mr. COVE: I think we ought to have something more than a vague optimism. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that large numbers of these youths will not attend the juvenile unemployment centres when no benefits are attached, and it is merely taking money out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for something which is said to be ameliorative as far as these youths are concerned. It is a scathing indictment of the Government and the Department that we have to go to an outside source to find out how these boys are employed and how many are employed. Let me recommend to the Minister and his Department a book on juvenile unemployment in Bermondsey by Mr. Eager. It is the finest investigation yet made of the problem. He takes about 201 youths and analyses the kinds of employment they are in. He says:
The fact that 131 out of the 200 jobs enumerated above are definitely without prospects or educational value is a sad comment on the meaning of the ' work ' which some boys get and other boys fail to get.
These are some of the jobs in which these boys are engaged—bottle washing for three weeks, oven boy at a biscuit factory for six months, labelling milk tins for four months, labelling milk tins for eight weeks, odd jobs at an engineering
firm, four months, packing chemicals, six weeks, van boy, three months; porter at a mop manufactory, one month; porter at a bakery, seven months; pushing a baker's cart, two weeks. And this scheme does not meet the problem of these boys. They are in and out of this unskilled work, and one would have thought, after all this time, that the Minister of Labour would have had a definite comprehensive and constructive scheme which would not only be good for the youths themselves but also economically sound, inasmuch as it would provide skilled men for the industries of this country. This scheme does not meet the problem at all, and the Minister will have to go a great deal further. He is bound to start from the age at which children leave school, from the time when they attend continuation classes, and he will have to hang his unemployment insurance centres on to a more coordinated educational scheme. This is mere tinkering with the problem, and the Minister cannot really expect anybody who knows anything at all about the question to accept it as having any value whatever. I hope we shall divide against this proposal. It is mean and petty, and shows such a lack of the tremendous importance of the problem that I shall be glad to go into the Lobby against it. It means nothing. The curse of the juvenile unemployment centres is that they have no continuity of existence. They are set up and then closed down. And they are set up in exceedingly bad buildings. There is no educational equipment. I have been in some which are quite unhealthy and insanitary, as far as the buildings are concerned. I ask the Minister of Labour to set about this problem not only from the humanitarian point of view —for the good of the children but also from the point of view of the good of the country. It is sound economics for the country to get hold of these children and train them in a proper manner. You cannot do that in these juvenile unemployment centres. I see nothing but waste, hypocrisy and meanness in such a proposal as this.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have listened with great care to the speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite, and I really wonder if they have a clear idea as to what we are trying to do. The first hon. Member who spoke from the benches opposite was the hon. Member for
South-west Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), and he referred to the great problem in London. He is intimately acquainted with London. Let us see the magnitude of the problem in London. At the end of October there were about 4,000 young persons of both sexes between the ages of 16 and 18 in London out of work. Quite obviously, we cannot get them all into one centre, and from the point of view of convenience and travel you would have to have many centres— 30 or 40—if we are going to do what the hon. Member for Southwest Bethnal Green wants us to do, that is, set up first-class educational institutions. Of these 4,000 the great mass are only temporarily out of work for three or four days. I doubt whether there are 500, if you offered continuous training without saying that they must go into these centres, who would voluntarily accept. Is that the proposal? There is a great deal of loose talk and a great deal of unadulterated nonsense talked on this subject. We have had from the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) a most eloquent speech, one of the most eloquent to which I have listened. The hon. Member said that she wanted some kind of co-ordinated scheme. That is one of the phrases we always use when we do not quite know what we are after. Then the hon. Member said that we should try to find some scheme of a more universal kind. That is another fine phrase, but it does not mean anything. What are we trying to do? The last speaker said that he wanted buildings where they can all get technical training. Training in what? Does he want them all to be engineers?

Mr. COVE: Certainly not. If the hon. Member knew anything about the problem he would know that what we want is variety of training for a variety of occupations.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We are to get these young people, who are temporarily out of work for only a few days at a time, and we are to give them a variety of training. What kind of technical institution has the hon. Member in mind when you are going to take in 300 or 400 young people, the bulk of whom will be there for three or four days intermittently 1 What sort of place will it be, if you are going to train them for every kind of occupation under the sun? That is what we mean
if we mean anything. I notice that the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) does not agree with me, but she has not thought out the problem. I have not the slightest doubt that the Noble Lady has talked a great deal about it, but I am not discussing that; I am discussing what she has thought about. In her constituency there are 539 of them. Let us imagine what kind of institution she would set up to deal with those 539 young people.

Viscountess ASTOR: Raise the school age.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If we were doing that as a general proposition, the financial and economic consequences we would have to discuss, but we are not considering that suggestion. We are considering dealing with people of whom the bulk are temporarily not at work, and we are to try to equip them so that they can face life's battle a little better. Like everyone else, I am in full sympathy with doing things of that kind, but do not let us run amok; do not let us try to "spring" some gigantic scheme to deal with a problem which, in many cases, does not exist at all, and in respect of which there has been a very wide measure of exaggeration. If we were to do anything on the lines suggested by the last speaker we should construct a great many new educational buildings. If we do that we are going to involve ourselves in colossal cost, quite out of proportion to the results to be achieved. If we are not to do that, are we going to inject a lot of temporary students into all the classes in existing educational institutions? If so, on what lines are we to do it? If we put them into the existing institutions we shall disorganise the work of those institutions, and if we build new institutions we are involved in colossal expenditure. My grievance against the critics of the Minister is that they are advocating all kinds of ideas and schemes when they have not the faintest idea of what they really mean.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: At this stage, it might be advisable to point oat that I have allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion of this particular Clause as this is the Second Beading, but that that does not mean that we are to discuss all the alternatives to the Minister's scheme. On the
next page of the Amendment Paper there is a New Clause—("Vocational training for young persons and juveniles")—in the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge (Mr. E. Wood) which is out of order. If I were to allow too wide a discussion on this New Clause, I would have to allow discussion of the Clause which is out of order.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: We have just had a characteristic speech from the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), whose air of intellectual superiority is only equalled by his ignorance of the subject. It is often that the hon. Member is out of his depth, for his range of subjects is wide. This afternoon he has been more than usually out of his depth. So far as I can tell, he does not know the first thing about the problem of juvenile unemployment.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Mr. GREENWOOD: I want to confine myself to the Clause that is before the Committee. I confess to very great dissatisfaction with the Clause. I do not believe that it is really giving us anything. In the first place, it entirely ignores the problem of the juvenile between 14 and 16 years of age whose plight is in some senses more serious than that of the insured persons between 16 and 18 years of age. If it be right to bring within the provisions of this Clause young persons between 16 and 18 who are not now insured, what is the argument for excluding those between 14 and 16, who are just as likely to come into insured employments as the older boys and girls between 16 and 18? This Clause does nothing more than empower the Minister to spend money. I think I am right in saying that even at the present time the insurance officer has power to require young people to attend centres. The title of the Clause gives one a proper idea of its importance. It is merely a provision to enable the right hon. Gentleman to spend money on this object. I confess that I was a little alarmed at his definition of a centre.
There are two problems of juvenile unemployment. There is the problem to which the Minister referred, the problem of the boy who is out of work for a very short period of time, perhaps a week and perhaps even less, but who ought to be under someone's care and super-
vision during that period. There is also the problem of the long spells of continuous unemployment that are to be found in the shipbuilding and mining areas. There the problem is not that of boys dropping out of jobs for a day or two and quickly getting back into employment. It is a case of scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of young people in those depressed areas, who for a period of one, two or more years have not known what it was to have any employment. Whatever may be said about the treatment of boys and girls who are in a centre only for days, here there is a case for something systematic, something really scientific in its organisation, something definitely designed to increase the economic efficiency of these young people, and something more than a social and recreational centre. I am sorry to think that the Minister does not mean to deal seriously with the problem of the unemployed juvenile on the coalfields and in the depressed areas. We were told that he is proposing to set up one or two more centres in South Wales, but his speech to-day did not convince me that those centres are to be of much value, because he seemed to be treating that problem in South Wales as though it were the problem that obtains in certain other towns.
In his speech the right hon. Gentleman missed the point of the Amendment which I moved last week. The purpose of that Amendment was that it would be compulsory on all unemployed juveniles, as a conditions of receiving benefit, to attend some kind of centre, unless they happened to be in such sparsely populated areas that such provision was very difficult, and then they might be excused by the insurance officer. We have not got that provision in this Clause. Indeed, we have not anything in this Clause for certain. We have no idea whether the insurance officer is going to require these people to attend centres. On the Second Reading of the Bill, when the Parliamentary Secretary wound up the Debate, we were told that it would be a considerable time before centres could be established and equipped. How long is it going to be before the insurance officer will begin to put a little pressure upon people to enter centres? We do not know. I believe that if the
Parliamentary Secretary was right in his view of the speed with which the Government can act within an area, the situation of the unemployed juvenile will be much what it is to-day. If that be so, this Clause is a mere fraud upon the Committee.
I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove). There is a power in the Clause and I hope it will be used. If it is used and if the money is made available partly out of the Treasury and partly out of the Fund, that is all to the good. I do not anticipate that we are going to get out of the Clause one tithe of the results that we could have got out of the Amendment which I moved last week, but at the same time I do not feel inclined to vote against the Clause. I am prepared to let it go—I put it no higher than that— because I would not vote against the right hon. Gentleman when he is prepared to do even a little bit. The right hon. Gentleman acts according to his lights. They may be small and dim lights, but if they are lights at all we have to be grateful. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not go to the length of rejecting this Clause, but will accept it, knowing that it is full of defects and weaknesses and that it will go hardly any way to deal with the problem of juvenile unemployment.

Mr. RADFORD: I was very surprised to find the opposition to this new Clause from the other side of the House. I would have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been well content to take this step, which is a step in the right direction, and would try to get it amplified and improved, possibly on the Report stage or at a later date. For my own part I feel that this is a distinct improvement of the Bill, incomplete though the proposals are. The only justification for reductions in the unemployment benefit of juveniles would be either that the actuaries' figures showed that under the contributions which they paid they were receiving too high benefits, or alternatively, that some other form of benefit was to be given to them. The Report of the actuaries, which is attached to the Blanesburgh Report, states plainly that on the basis on which the Blanesburgh Committee acted there would be a surplus on these young people's contributions of £750,000 a year. Therefore, it is clear
that the reduction of their benefits is not justified on the ground of actuarial necessity. The only other justification for it would be that they were to get some alternative benefits in the form of instruction instead of in actual cash. I think that to give them some instruction, and a little discipline with it, is infinitely better than giving them the money.
5.0 p.m.
When I was 16 years of age I was getting a salary of a little less than 4s. a week, and I am quite sure that if I could have seen as an alternative a welcome few months of idleness occasionally, and only 6s. a week instead of 3s. 10d. and some fraction of a penny which I was getting, I would have welcomed it. I do not know that the boys and girls of to-day are different from what I was at that age. I welcome sincerely the proposal of the Minister. In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), I would say that it is very easy for private backbench Members on this side or hon. Members in the Opposition, to come forward with counsels of perfection, calling upon the Government to provide all sorts of technical training in every centre. As the hon. Member very rightly said, to give a training in all different classes of trades is an absolute impossibility. But if it is impossible to give these young people the necessary variety of technical training, at least they can have some exercise, some Swedish drill and some simple instructions. Hon. Members opposite smile at that suggestion, but I ask the Minister to take note of what is being done in the town which I have the honour to represent, namely, Salford. The guardians in Salford have in actual operation a scheme of instructional classes, not for boys and girls but for single men up to 30 and married men up to 25 who do not come under the benefits of unemployment insurance. Before the guardians grant these men outdoor relief, they make them attend these instructional classes for two hours on Monday, two hours on Tuesday, two hours on Wednesday, four hours on Thursday, and two hours on Friday. There are classes for English, Swedish drill, gymnastics, drawing, hobbies and simple arithmetic.
If the Minister wishes me to do so, I shall be pleased to furnish him with a
detailed syllabus of the simple instruction which is being given to these unemployed men in Salford—not, as I have said, merely boys and girls of 16 and 17, but men up to 30 years of age. In the meantime, I welcome a proposal which makes a great improvement in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite have objected to the inclusion in the Bill of certain things which were recommended in the Blanesburgh Report. They have also objected to the exclusion from the Bill of proposals for training classes because, they said, the Report recommended such classes. If hon. Members opposite had confined themselves to finding fault with the Bill because it did not include these instructional classes, I should have agreed with them, but as they have objected to the inclusion in the Bill of things recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee Report, I think they have lost the right to criticise the Bill on the ground that other recommendations have been omitted.

Mr. HARDIE: I rise to try to make clear from my personal experience and training the meaning of this subject. Many things have been said in this discussion, but no real light has been thrown upon this subject. When we talk about training, we mean education. If there is to be no love for education, for education's sake; if we are only to regard education as a means of training so many people to meet industrial needs, then we may say "good-bye" to real education, because instead of developing reasoning beings, we are developing robots. That is the real danger in all suggestions of this kind. The question has been asked to-day, "How are you going to divide up this training into all the different sections required? My answer is that you do not require to do anything of the kind. A general education is what fits young people for their various callings. Any one of the sciences with which we are acquainted to-day covers a multitude of trades. Let me illustrate what I mean. In the case of the electrical engineering industry you have men who are known as wire-men. They need not have any knowledge of electricity, of how it is generated, or how it is affected under different conditions. All that is required of the wire-man is that he should be skilled in leading wires from one place to another. In the motor section
of the trade, you find men who are skilled only in motors. Other men are skilled only in relation to dynamos. Our idea of training is to give the person concerned a basic understanding of the science that underlies industry, and this general training of boys or girls need not be split up into hundreds or thousands of sections. You could have it in not more than seven compartments, and in those seven compartments you could cover the science of nearly every industry which we conduct in this country to-day. I see no difficulty at all so far as training is concerned. To take an illustration outside those I have mentioned, let me deal with the question of a training in physics. Let that be ever so slight—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must realise that we are not now discussing a general question of vocational training, but merely a question of grants out of the Unemployment Fund towards courses of instruction for young people between 16 and 18.

Mr. HARDIE: It is because this proposal applies to young people between 16 and 18 that I am pointing out the lines on which it would be best to act. I am suggesting that we should aim at providing these boys and girls with a ground-work, and give them a real interest in the scientific basis of our various industries. Unless you can interest the individuals of between 16 and 18 in the science of an industry, you will not produce the developed and complete artisan or skilled engineer. When you can interest the pupil in a subject, you can make a skilled craftsman of him, but when you go in for partial training and introduce the kind of sectionalism which has been suggested, the complete idea is not before the pupil and you destroy his vision of the subject. I want to see this money spent on giving the kind of ground-work training I have indicated. I do not want it to be spent in such a way that it will, in the end, turn these boys and girls into blind-alley occupations. The whole argument from the other side is that we should have a system under which only the sons and daughters of the rich are to be highly trained, while those of the poorer classes are to become robots, mere attendants on machinery. The real basis of a nation is the general education of its young
people on all subjects pertaining to whatever vocations they intend to follow, and I hope the Minister will view the problem in that light.

Viscountess ASTOR: I very much regret that I was not here when the Minister was speaking. It is a little difficult to refer to a speech which one has not heard, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has been rather vague about these centres, and I only rise to ask him some questions about them. I should like in the first place to know who he proposes to put into them. It is a very important question, because their success depends entirely upon the type of people who are going to run them. I would also ask the Minister if he cannot see his way to make a larger grant for the women's training centres. It is all right for the Minister to say that these centres are to be kept up, but as the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) pointed out, at one time they were turning out 8,700 trained women in a year and now the figure has fallen to 2,500. This is a work which ought to recommend itself to every Member of this House, even the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). The hon. Member for Reading, like the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) and other hon. Members on this side, often say that more unemployed women should take up domestic service. Here we have a scheme which trains suitable women and makes them into good domestic servants, but, as I have said, the numbers turned out are going down gradually every year, and this year the figure is lower than it has ever been before. That is why I beg of the Minister to see that a larger grant is made towards these centres. That is literally and truly the only thing which the Government is doing, in this respect, for women. I would remind the Government that we are going to have a great many more women interested in politics than ever before. I can only rejoice at the fact, because I think when women begin to make themselves heard in the way men are heard now, we may have a chance of getting larger grants for the necessitous areas.
I was attacked by the hon. Member for Reading, who said I knew nothing about this subject. Unlike the hon. Member for Reading, I do not think that I know all about every subject. If anything in the
world bores me, it is the professional politician who is ready to talk on any subject, no matter whether he knows it or not. I know it is pleasant for the Government to have Members of that kind. They are the kind who get on in a Government, but they are not the kind of people who get things done in the country. I have given a great deal of thought to this question of juvenile unemployment, and the Minister himself knows that this Government has more right to know about it than almost any other Government, because we have had three committees dealing with it—the Malcolm Committee, the Haddow Committee, and now the Blanesburgh Committee. The Government have thought very deeply over this very difficult subject. It is all very well to sit and talk about young people being in and out of employment, but the Minister knows that there are thousands of young people in the country who have never been at any kind of work at all. That is the kind of thing which alarms many Members on this side of the House, as well as Members on the other side of the House. It is a matter which must deeply concern the Minister, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be put off by professional speakers on any side of the House, particularly below the Gangway.
May I ask the Minister's attention to one more point? Many of us regret the suggestion that another committee should be set up. I think the Minister said he was going to set up a committee to coordinate all these proposals. I hope, if he does so, he will set up a committee which really means business. We have a chance now that no other Government, probably, will get for a long time, because this Government has a large majority and, as we like to think, a patriotic majority. It is only patriotism that is going to settle this question of juvenile unemployment within the next five years, no matter how well industry develops. Industry is changing, and the apprenticeship system is changing, and we have a serious problem ahead of us in this respect. The Government ought to think out a co-ordinated scheme, applying to young people up to 18, and if they did so they would have behind them not only Members on this side of the House, but the whole of the country.
The country is waiting for a lead, and is tired of committees. I am disappointed that this matter has not been more thoroughly dealt with and that something real has not been done, instead of having piecemeal legislation. I do not want to say anything about hon. Members on the other side in this connection, though I feel that it is only fair when I criticise my own Government that I should criticise the Opposition also. I think that is only justice. Hon. Members opposite have a scheme, which probably they will not be able to bring in in our lifetime. I am not asking for the impossible, but I ask—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will you tell us what you are asking for?

Viscountess ASTOR: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman, because I know he is not interested in the matter and he is only talking for the sake of hearing himself talk.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions, because although the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has stated that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is out of his depth in these matters, it seemed to me, from the speeches of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and of several other hon. Members, on both sides, that more or less the whole Committee is out of its depth. I feel sure that when the Minister replies we shall find out where we are, but to judge by the new Clause on the Paper and the information which is given to us, we are debating hypothetical questions as to what is to be done with the money when we really have very little knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do with it. The new Clause states that half the money will be provided from the Unemployment Fund. The figure at present voted for the relief of unemployment, under Subhead 3, for sundry services, including juvenile unemployment centres, accounts for £65,000, and the same amount was voted last year. If half is to be provided from the Unemployment Fund, is £65,000 to be provided, or is the Unemployment Fund to provide quite a large sum of money, in which case we shall have an extra amount from this grant as well as from the Treasury. I am certain that this question can be cleared up easily,
but I think the Committee has a right to know exactly what are the financial commitments of the House on this Clause. At present we have no knowledge. It is generally the custom to provide the Committee with a White Paper, so that we may know exactly what is meant to be done.
It is not enough at this stage of the Debate to say that the Blanesburgh Committee tell us that these juvenile centres are necessary, because we have disregarded so many recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee. We are not going to pay any attention to the equalisation of contributions, for instance, and I should say, therefore, that that is not a sufficient reason for us providing these centres for the juvenile unemployed. We ought to know in what way the money is going to be spent. Is it going to be spent on centres to provide training for occupations so that the boys should be able to take part in some of the various trades that come under this Bill? Several hon. Members opposite have already said that that would be no use, because there are not the jobs to give them when they are trained. Further, we might remember that various trade unions train their own men in some industries and will not allow those to come in who have been trained outside. If that is the case, are these centres to be welfare centres, such as has been suggested by 'hon. Members behind me? That is surely a completely new departure, and I was surprised at the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) suggesting that young people from 16 to 18 years of age would need to be taught simple arithmetic, because I always understood that our present system of education was at least good enough to teach them that amount of knowledge.

Mr. RADFORD: Might I ask my hon. Friend if he, personally, has retained the scholastic knowledge which he acquired at school?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot tell the hon. Member whether I have done so up to my age, but I certainly had between the ages of 16 and 18, which is what we are now discussing. I presume that I retained what I learned up to that age, and we are not discussing those who are unemployed at my age.

Mr. RADFORD: Up to 30 years of age.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Is the course of instruction, then, to be a continuous course on general subjects? If so, why not have the proposal that has been put forward from time to time to raise the school age and discuss that? There are probably different views upon that point, but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to give us the facts, which I think the Committee should have before going to a division, if hon. Members opposite force us to a division, so that we can come to a proper understanding as to what we are voting about.

Mr. WILFRID PALING: I should like to ask a question affecting a particular class of these people. I understand that, so far as these training centres are concerned, because of the fact that many of these unemployed young people are in and out propositions, from 16 to 18 years of age, you cannot give them any continued training, and certainly not training of a technical character. That may be so in such cases as those about which the Minister spoke—the cases of boys and girls in places like London—but in the valleys of South Wales and to some extent in the Durham coalfield, where whole districts are idle, even now you may have boys just over 16 who had just started paying contributions to the Insurance Fund and, because of the fact that the pits are continually shutting down, and some of them for good, setting whole districts out of work, these boys may be out of work for very long periods indeed. While it may be good that training centres like these should be set up to deal with children who are out of work only intermittently and for short periods, I want to know whether it is the intention of the Government, in districts such as those in South Wales, in places where these lads are out of work for three, four, or even five years, to set up centres of a character which will allow these lads to have a technical training and a training that will fit them for some other job, in virtue of the fact that they are never likely to get another job in the pits in these coalfields. The Minister said, in a previous statement in this House, that he hoped to set up some of these training centres before Christmas in South Wales, but I would like him to tell us
whether these training centres will apply to these lads from 16 to 18 years of age of whom I speak.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The difficulty of this Debate lies in the fact that it has been something in the nature of a Second Heading Debate on training for the young. When I got up to move this Clause, which was quite accurately described by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) as taking power in an Unemployment Bill to make grants towards juvenile unemployment centres from the Unemployment Fund, I had to consider over how much of the subject I should range. What we are discussing, I submit to the Committee, is an Unemployment Bill, and juvenile unemployment centres are connected with that Bill and form, from the point of view of the unemployment system, a quite small part of the subject; and this afternoon, with a number of Clauses yet to come, I thought I was naturally precluded, if only from the point of view of the convenience of hon. Members opposite who would wish to discuss those Clauses, from ranging over the whole question of education and training in all its ramifications and implications. I had some hesitation in alluding to questions such as the National Advisory Council and the Local Education Authorities Sub-Committees, just because it was straying from the Clause immediately under discussion, and I did not want to drag out the Debate too widely or to occupy too much time. As a matter of fact, it is absurd to range over the whole question of education, training, and unemployment on what is a quite small issue in connection with the subject of unemployment. I should be the last to say that the question of training was unimportant, but we have had all kinds of educational points raised that have been completely outside the scope of this Clause, and when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne gets up to complain that I have not dealt with the question of boys and girls from 14 to 16 years of age, I would remind him that this House itself has decided, when the party opposite were in office, that boys and girls of those ages were not to come within the insurance system. Therefore, quite obviously, they could not come within the direct ambit of this Clause.
If I had dealt with all these matters in the first instance, hon. Members oppo-
site would have been the first to complain, and perhaps with reason, that I had strayed too far. As the discussion has covered such a wide area, however, let me briefly reply. The point was first raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), but the fact that we are dealing with a perfectly necessary small part, not so much of training, as of maintaining an industrial habit for boys and girls, is nothing in disparagement of technical education. I would be the first to say that the more technical education we get in this country, the more we fit boys and girls to become highly-skilled members of the community, the better; but that, I submit, has nothing to do with this proposal. The fact that when a boy is out of a job for a week you are going to give him just those days in a juvenile unemployment centre does not derogate one little bit from the value of technical training as a whole. The only thing I would ask the hon. Member who spoke on that subject to remember is that we really have to be practical, and people who, like him and like the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) talk so much about training everybody for skilled occupations, are completely blind to the practical circumstances of the case. I have had just about as much to do with boys as have most Members of the Committee here, and I am speaking from practical experience when I say that to assert that it is possible or that it is a practical proposition to train everybody for skilled occupations in this country is nothing but nonsense.
There always will be unskilled labour, and I am not at all sure that the proportion of unskilled labour with the advent of machinery is greatly decreasing. It is a great advantage obviously to have as many skilled men and women as possible, and the more you can replace unskilled work by machinery for the heaviest kind of labour the better, but the more you do so the more you get automatic machinery, which again tends to make semi-skilled engineers into comparatively unskilled workmen. Therefore, to talk, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green talked, about turning everybody into skilled people is sheer nonsense. The term "unskilled labour" is in itself a vague term. There is labour which is more or less skilled, and there is a great deal of what is
generally called unskilled labour, which, at any rate, has got a good deal of what I would call adjustment in it, which the complete outsider would take some time to pick up, but, taking the trades broadly, there will always be a lot of unskilled labour in this country; and what is not generally recognised, but ought to be recognised, is that what is needed is not only technical education to make people into skilled workmen and women, but also the getting hold of boys and girls who will be, as everyone practically knows, unskilled workpeople, and who it is vitally important, even though they are more or less unskilled, shall not have what I would call their industrial habit demoralised. That is the need, and I do not say it is as important as skilled training, but it exists side by side with it as one of the two important things we have got to consider.
The object of this Clause is to set up centres where you maintain what I call the industrial habit. There will be boys and girls in and out again. I think those who have not much practical experience of the problem do not realise perhaps what in and out means. [An HON. MEMBER: "And parents, too!"] And perhaps parents, too. It does not mean they have a week in industry and a week out. In most places there is comparatively little juvenile unemployment at this moment. Taking a broad view there is comparatively little juvenile unemployment. It is very little over 3 per cent. and if anybody knows what 3 per cent. means they will know that it is reduced to a very small amount. Once you get down to a figure of something like 2 per cent. that indicates that you will catch the people on a Monday who are passing over from one kind of occupation to another. You register them, just at the moment, as unemployed, but it does not mean that they are out of a job for a long time. It means whether their job lasts for a couple of months or six months or a year that when they get out of a job they get into it again quickly. That is the state of affairs on a broad view of nearly all districts in the country in regard to boys and girls. If boys or girls are out for a couple of weeks or three weeks, it is a good thing that they should go to what are not unhealthy buildings. I do not know whether the hon. Member's experience has ranged far or whether he
has inspected many of these centres, but if he will go further he will correct his view. The boys go to these centres and get a certain amount of gymnastic exercise and drill, and carpentry, and the girls get gymnastics and drill and sewing together with elementary bookkeeping, writing, and occasionally shorthand. The centres are not intended to, and they cannot, train people in a skilled occupation. Their object is really to maintain the industrial habit of the juveniles while they are out of work. So far as the extent of money is concerned £60,000 was provided last year and the Estimates are being settled Departmentally just about this season with the Treasury. The sum is not yet fixed, but according as the sum is fixed it will be possible under this Clause to make a grant out of the Unemployment Fund equivalent to the amount to be borne by the Treasury in respect of the juveniles to whom this Clause applies. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) says that it is a rotten scheme. I ask him what he would do with the boys who are just out for a week or so. Would he do nothing? A boy may be out for a fortnight and then get into a job. Does the hon. Member want him to go to a centre like this or not
That is the answer anyone has got to give and if any hon. Member wants to do so let him vote against the Clause and we shall know exactly where he stands. I say in regard) to these boys and girls that what we suggest is a way really to help them. In a vast number of towns the centres are not needed because there are not enough unemployed juveniles, but so far as unemployed juveniles exist, this is the way to help them. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has been to a Juvenile Unemployment Centre.

Mr. HARRIS: I have. I say the period ought to be longer than three weeks for you cannot do anything effective in so short a time.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Therefore the hon. Member would either leave the boys from two to three weeks on the streets or refuse to let them take a job when they could get one. With regard to the mining areas, the boys and girls there are likely to be out for longer periods and we are considering whether we cannot adapt the curriculum, better for people who are going to be out for longer
time. I am not slothful in business, but further than that I cannot go at the present moment except to say that as far as they are in the mining areas what I should like to do is to be able to arrange that they should be able to be transferred properly to those districts where there will be greater opportunities of work in future so as not to detain them in mining areas which are depressed for a longer period than necessary. The last thing I am asked is whether this is an advance. I make no pretensions whatever that this Clause is more than I put it down to be.

Mr. T. SHAW: Hear, hear!

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is far better not to do it than to make pretensions. I make no pretensions that this Clause is more than I put it down to be. Hon. Members opposite are scornful and do not mention such experiments as I started and which they never thought of, but this is designed to continue juvenile unemployment centres on a permanent basis. They have never been properly reviewed by anyone before. What we are doing is to deal with them in a systematic way. I do not pretend for one moment to indulge in all the soaring schemes that hon. Members opposite have and of which they often do not count the cost. I always do count the cost, and I say frankly that for people to go ahead and spend money gaily with always the vague phrase that it is bound to be a saving in the long run will land any country into disaster. This is a definite step forward. It has been thought out carefully and deeply.

Mr. SHAW: Why was it not in the Bill?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Debates they will find out. This scheme has been thought out. We are not going forward in a grandiose way without looking where we are going. It is a careful advance and I would ask hon. Members who want to see advance, to see where they are going and to see reason for it and not merely to indulge in blind visions without seeing the ultimate results—

Mr. SHAW: You cannot have blind visions.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, you can; shut your eyes and dream, as so many hon. Members opposite do. I ask
those Members who wish to see advance without indulging in blind visions to vote for this Clause. On the other hand, if there are any who say it is to be despised and rejected, I shall be happy and glad to see them go into the Lobby against me.

Question, "that the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of waiting period.)

Paragraph 1 of Part I. of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, as amended by Section Three of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, shall have effect as if the words "after the first week" were omitted.— [Mr. Short.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. SHORT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause involves the abolition of the waiting period. Having regard to the concession made by the Minister last week, when I moved another Amendment, I am hopeful that he will extend his generosity to me on this occasion. I can assure him that my motive is well-intentioned. The Bill has had a very good response, and there is much heartburning among Tory back-benchers, for many of them, I feel, realise that, in consequence of the introduction of this Bill, they will fail to enter Parliament after the next General Election. Consequently, I am extending to the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to retrieve his position. I am inviting him merely to do something generous, and he will then be able to go down to the country and say that, although he introduced this Unemployment Insurance Bill, although he reduced benefits and created a new class of young person, although he gave, them a statutory right of benefit, but surrounded it with barbed wire entanglements and many disqualifications, yet he did accept a new Clause moved by myself which will increase the comfort and well-being of insured contributors.
Under the provisions of the law, when an insured contributor falls out of employment, he has to stand for a whole week before he can secure benefit. There may have been some justification for the provision of a waiting period in the early stages of unemployment insurance legislation. In 1911 the scheme was confined
to some 2,250,000 workers, a small number of trades and industries were affected, and the risks in the trades covered were fairly great. We had little or no experience, and what experience we had was founded on the administration of trade unions. It is true that a small number of trade unions with their limited contributions had a waiting period, and I think it might be said that the waiting period in their case and in the early stages of unemployment insurance was justifiable, but in the case of many trade unions unemployment benefit was paid from the first day of unemployment if the period of unemployment extended over any period or for a definite period in the rules. But the present scheme has materially altered that. We have now something in the nature of a universal employment scheme, and the basis of a waiting period is the assumption that when an insured contributor goes oat of employment he is in a position financially to stand for a week. I challenge that assumption.
We have had six or seven years of continuous unemployment, with never less than 1,000,000 unemployed. Almost every working class home has been afflicted with the consequences of unemployment. Further, the workers have never received, and do not receive to-day, more than a subsistence wage, and wages have been reduced to an alarming extent, the reduction being somewhere in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 per week. Those in employment have in many cases been, compelled to work short time. The cost of living during this unhappy period has been exceptional, and to-day it is 67 per cent. above the pre-War rate. The chief increase has been in the price of food, which on 1st September rose from 57 per cent. above pre-War to 61 per cent. on 1st October. The price of coal rose from 70 per cent. on 1st September to between 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. on 1st October. Winter is approaching, and there are no signs of any fall, particularly in the price of coal, the tendency, indeed, being towards an increase. The restoration of the gold standard has had an economic effect on the finances of the workers. We are told by Mr. Keynes that the mere restoration of the gold standard reduced every pound of the wages of the workers by 2s. The value of money today is very low as compared with its pre-War value, £1 being worth somewhere in
the neighbourhood of 12s., so that a wage of £2, which, I am told, is the weekly wage of more than 2,000,000 people, is today worth only something in the neighbourhood of 24s.
Is it seriously contended that the working class, who have gone through this unprecedented period, in which such serious blows have been struck at their standard of life, have any surplus, have any bank balances or other reserves to fall back upon when they lose their employments It is a fantastic fallacy to assume that the great mass of the working class have any means whatsoever, because their resources have been drained to the utmost limit. Many of them are in debt—to the grocer, to the tailor, to the doctor. In my constituency many of them are paying off loans which they received from the Poor Law Guardians. I say with a full sense of responsibility that even when they are in employment there is an option upon their week's wages before they can have what they have earned for their own benefit. How do these people exist? Many of them have no means and have to go to the Poor Law Guardians. For proof of that we have only to read the evidence submitted to the Blanesburgh Committee. I will read two short extracts, beginning with Question 876. This is the evidence of the representatives of the Association of Poor Law Unions:
Then in paragraph 7 you advocate the abolition of the waiting period, and in paragraph 8 the abolition of the gap period, I think?—The gap has gone. We say there we are very glad it went, and hope it will not come back.
877. As regards the waiting week, does not that assume the normal insurable person will have no reserves whatever to fall back upon?—The point is mentioned here because of the number of people who come to the guardians in consequence of having to wait a week. We get an appreciable number in excess of what we used to get when the three days' waiting period was operating and it is rather a long time especially under present conditions for people to exist without assistance.
878. Of course, your guardians investigate these cases very thoroughly?—Yes.
879. And they have come to the conclusion that a week is too long?—Yes, the guardians, speaking generally, have very adequate staffs for investigation and they go very carefully into the cases that come before them, and they do not grant relief unless they are satisfied that the assistance is absolutely necessary.
Here is a further extract from page 100, beginning at Question 919:
Does the present method mean that the assistance of the guardians is applied for by men who would manage without for three days but who cannot manage for a week?—I think it means that conclusively.
920. Have you any figures to justify that? —I have had some figures supplied to me from the unions tabulated at the end of the memorandum. In Birmingham, within three months, there were 1,280 cases, in Bristol, 654 cases, in Manchester, 638 cases, in West Derby, 797 cases, all cases coming to the guardians in consequence of the waiting period being one week.
I would call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that very definite statement of cases coming to the guardians in consequence of the waiting period being one week.
921. I take it you do not suggest that these returns give a complete list of all the areas where the burden thrown on the local rates has been particularly heavy?-— No. That statement probably does not represent half the number, but those selected are in most cases unions that have been for a long time in very distressed circumstances, where there has been the largest percentage of persons in receipt of relief, and I have added to those unions two or three big towns. It is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of necessitous areas.
I ask the Committee to listen to this next question, remembering that it was in August, 1925, that the right hon. Gentleman increased the waiting period from three to six days.
922. It shows that at the end of December, 1925, the numbers of insured persons in receipt of relief were 510,000, giving a proportion per 10,000 of the population of 132. The comparative figures for December, 1924, were 333,000 and the proportion per 10,000 of the population 87. That shows, does it not, that there are 180,000 more insured persons and their dependants on the relief roll than there were 12 months ago?—Yes.
Those figures are very alarming, and very illuminating. They prove conclusively, on evidence which cannot be tampered with, evidence which we, at any rate, do not provide, that these great local areas are having thrust upon them as a result of this waiting period a burden which ought to be carried by the Fund itself or by the State. Of course I shall be told that what is asked for in the Amendment will cost too much. That is always the reply. We never have any money for the unemployed or for the poor, or to fight poverty or disease or to remove anxieties from the homes of the people, though we find plenty of money to squander in other directions. To reduce
the waiting period from a week to three days would cost £3,000,000, we are told by the Blanesburgh Committee; to abolish the waiting period altogether would cost £6,000,000. We have to remember, however, that if we abolish the waiting period we should remove all those unemployed workers from the Poor Law, and the saving in Poor Law expenditure must be counted as a set off against the £6,000,000. The reduction of the burden on the local areas would be reflected in a reduction of local rates, and that would be an encouragement to the revival of trade; an impetus would be given to trade and commerce and employment. There would be no need to increase the contributions of either employers or of workpeople in order to provide this £6,000,000—or rather less, if we take into account the saving on Poor Law expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman has made some savings on this Fund. He has made a saving by reducing the rate of benefit from 18s. to 17s. It is slight, but there is a saving. He has made a saving by the creation of a young persons' class and by reducing their benefits from 10s. to 8s., though I admit that, by an Amendment which he has tabled, those benefits ought to be slightly increased. He has made a saving by reducing the benefits of young boys and girls. There is a pool out of which he could provide the benefits I am advocating by the abolition of the waiting period. I go further than that, and say that the right hon. Gentleman owes this Fund something. Since August, 1925, when he extended the waiting period from three days to a week, he has saved a large sum of money. That saving has been going on for two years. It is difficult for me to estimate the exact amount, but on the assumption that it would cost £6,000,000 to abolish the waiting period we can say he has saved at least £6,000,000. In my opinion, he ought to be ready to return that money to the insured contributors.
On the ground of economy the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the grant to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, an act which was never justified. This waiting period creates a real hardship in the homes of the people, and it may operate more than once in any given 12 months. It transfers financial burdens from the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the Poor Law guardians,
it increases the difficulties of necessitous areas, and it increases the difficulties of local authorities. We ought not to cast these burdens on our depressed local areas. If we have an Insurance Fund we ought to face up to these liabilities and responsibilities. I cannot be accused of wanting to upset the actuarial soundness of the scheme, because there is no actuarial basis, and it has been acknowledged that in a short time Parliament will be confronted with another Bill on similar lines. Seeing that we are now catering for 11,750,000 persons, seeing that we are bringing in all those great trades and industries, we ought to be willing to relieve insured contributors of this hardship and free them from the liability of having either to go to the Poor Law or live for a week without the necessities of life.

6.0 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The hon. Gentleman who has moved this New Clause asks us, for the first time, I think, in the history of unemployment insurance, to abolish the waiting period altogether. That is a claim which, as far as I know, has not been made hitherto by anybody. It certainly was not made by those who were speaking on behalf of the trade union movement before the Blanesburgh Committee, because what they asked for was definitely a three days' waiting period, instead of six days. This is what the Committee say:
We urge, also, that the waiting period shall be reduced to three days as under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, and that where benefit is payable it should date from the first day of unemployment.
Therefore, the claim which is now being made by the Mover of this Amendment is quite new. Shortly, the history of this matter has been that, except when the waiting period was three days for a short period in the year 1921, and for a period of about 12 months under the Act introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), the period has always been six days, and to ask us to make this change now is making an entirely new claim. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) referred to some of the evidence given before the Blanesburgh Committee, and
he read out certain questions and answers. The Blanesburgh Committee have considered these points and in their Report they say:
We may say at once that, though we have given to these suggestions very full consideration, we have decided to recommend that the present rules remain unchanged.
If hon. Members will refer back to paragraph 124, the opinion of the Committee will be found to be conclusive that there should be, at any rate, some waiting period, because they say:
Everybody who is unemployed is out of work for one day, fewer for two days, fewer for a week or a month. The number of those who have at a given time been out of work for a prolonged period, as we have already seen in another connection, bears quite a small proportion to the total number of the unemployed. If the unit of employment is the day, as at present, some odd days on which no work is available are quite common, especially in certain trades. These are not proper subject-matter for insurance.
Those are the conclusions to which the Committee came, after hearing the evidence given, including the evidence referred to by the hon. Member for Wednesbury. Therefore it is quite clear that to abolish the waiting period altogether would simply mean that you would be including in this scheme the men moving from one job to another, who are not in any sense unemployed persons at all. It is quite true that the cost would be something considerably over £6,000,000, and that in itself is quite prohibitive. I am afraid I should be going beyond the Rules of Order if I attempted to answer the arguments of the hon. Member, but no doubt other points can be argued on the next Amendment. For a number of years we have continually extended what we know as the continuity rule, and we have made it much easier for the period of six days to be fulfilled. Consequently, the waiting period of six days is very different from what it was when the continuity rule was less generous. I will not develop this argument any further at the moment, but I will do so when the next Amendment is moved. This Amendment is inconsistent with any principle of insurance, and we cannot accept a proposal for the abolition of all waiting periods, because that would be tantamount to saying that if a man is going from one
job to another, or is unemployed only for a single day, he should be entitled to benefit under this scheme.

Mr. T. SHAW: I read the meaning of the passage quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary quite differently.

Mr. BETTERTON: I read the whole of the paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman suggested dating back the payment to the first day, but that is an entirely different point. What the trade unionists recommended in their memorandum, which was placed before the Blanesburgh Committee, was that there should be a waiting period of three days, and if that is served then they would date the benefit back to the first day. Now this Amendment proposes that the waiting period should be abolished altogether, and there is no question of serving three days, or even one day.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: I have been wondering how far the Parliamentary Secretary is justified in using an argument in which he does not believe. In reply to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) he quoted the evidence that was submitted on behalf of the Trade Union Congress before the Blanesburgh Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary got the Minister to accept that, and if he is not now prepared to say, "I agree with it," has he any right to use that as a reason against the abolition of the waiting period? I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has a right to use what is commonly known as a "try-on." We are now dealing with a very serious problem, the supplying of food to those who have no means of getting any food other than applying for Poor Law relief. We have had evidence given before the Blanesburgh Committee read out by the hon. Member for Wednesbury showing that in a large number of cases men who have lost their employment have had to apply for Poor Law relief within one week.
It is not a question whether the nation ought to expend this money or not. The real question is whether we should expend the money as Poor Law relief or as unemployment pay. Personally, I prefer that this money should be spent as unemployment pay, and I take this view for many reasons. Here we have a contributory scheme, and all citizens who pay taxes contribute towards that
scheme. All the workmen who are insured persons under the scheme also pay towards the cost of the scheme, and I suggest that the men who pay a full quota towards that scheme ought to have some right to say under what conditions the scheme should be worked, and consequently they are asking for the waiting period to be abolished. If the employers of the country only knew their business as well as they think they know it, then they would be backing up the trade unionists and the insured workers in their effort to get unemployment pay started as soon as possible after dispensing with the services of the men in order that those men might be kept in good condition for work in the future. The only effect of driving these men on to Poor Law relief means that they have to live on the lowest standard of subsistence that a Christian country dare permit itself to adopt. The only effect of this course is to undermine the health, and consequently the skill, of the workers, and all this tends to make them inefficient.
There is not a Member sitting on the benches opposite who possesses a motor car who expects it to run without petrol, although the whole lot of hon. Members opposite seem to think that a workman can live without food. Of course he cannot, and if employers take a real interest in industry and efficiency they should treat their workpeople just as they are compelled to treat their own boilers in a factory, because they know if they stop shovelling coal into the furnace they will get no steam to drive the engine. Why not supply food to the human engine? If employers cut short the supply of food, they will have to pay for it in the long run. As a matter of fact, we are falling behind in the race for cheap production, because we are losing our skill, and no effort is being made to retain that skill. No interest is being taken in the workpeople, and that has been demonstrated repeatedly in this House at every stage of this Measure. The Parliamentary Secretary says that by this Amendment we are asking for too much, but we are not asking for any more than the trade unions have asked for. At present trade unions pay from the first day, and that is provided for in their rules. Trade unions also pay for holidays; that is a claim we shall have to put forward, and no doubt it
will surprise the Parliamentary Secretary on some other occasion. This is not a case of workpeople combining together as a trade union and building up a fund for mutual assistance when trade is bad. This is a scheme promoted by the fathers of the people, and it is promoted by the House of Commons on behalf of our race, and is an attempt to maintain it. The Minister takes the view that these men can exist for a week on nothing, and he insists that they must get over that difficulty as well as they can. Trade unionists take the view that these men should be paid for the first day if the man is out of work for a given period.
We do that for reasons which the Minister himself adduced. We are logical. Will the Minister be as logical, and back up his quotation of the evidence of the trade unions by following the example of those trade unions who pay from the first day, or will he remain where he is, keeping these men without income for a week? Their difficulty is not living for one week, because usually in industry you have to work the first week for nothing. That is called lying time. Sometimes it is a shorter period than a week, but very often it is a full week, and if you have been working regularly and lose your job, you can draw that money at the end of the period and have a little bit to tide you over the first week. But it must be remembered that you have then to work a fortnight for nothing before "you are able to get pay for your work, and it is not the first week, but the second and the third week where the difficulty comes in, if you are not going to have any unemployment pay during that period. It is all right while industry is normal, and you are working pretty well full time. Then, if the place closes down and you lose your job, you have your lying time to draw.
Most of our industries nowadays, however, are working short time, and the men have been half-starved while they were working. I wish I could get hon. Gentlemen opposite to go and live, or attempt to live, for a week or a fortnight on the wages that some of these men get for a full week's work. There are millions of men in this country now getting less than £2 a week. Where the head of the family is the only breadwinner in the house, there can be no savings out of
that; they are not getting enough to keep them in physical efficiency. If the head of the family is working short time, such as had been prevalent for years past, he has had to have Poor Law relief as well as the wages that he was earning, so that he might live up to a standard of existence higher than we are providing for in this Bill. There is no room in that for cutting down, there is no room for saving. If we here are really interested in the welfare of the people of this country, we should make better provision than is being made for them in this Bill. I am going to vote for the new Clause.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Parliamentary Secretary used two arguments against this proposed new Clause. The first was that, if it were carried, it would be possible for a man who was merely changing over from one job to another to get the benefit of unemployment insurance; and the hon. Gentleman's other argument against the proposal was that it was going to cost more money than the nation could afford. The first argument suggests to me that the Parliamentary Secretary, like the rest of the members of his party, fails to grasp what is really the position of many hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of the working-class people of this country. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by changing over from one employment to another? What is his idea when he uses a phrase of that character? Is it the usual thing, when a man goes from one job to another, that he must have one day, or two days, or three days out of work? Is is a necessary part of the business that that should occur? People, surely, can change over from one employment to another without any unemployment at all, but the hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is of no consequence at all, that it is merely in the natural course of things, that people changing over from one employment to another should go without wages for a day, or two days, or even three days, as the case may be.
After all, the ordinary working man, or at any rate the casual worker and the lower-paid workers of this country, cannot afford to do without a day's wages. Their money has to be spent in small amounts; it has to be spent day by day very largely; and, if they go without a
day's wages, the result is that they go without a day's food, and their children go without a day's food. The light way in which the Parliamentary Secretary talks about the mere process of changing over from one job to another surely indicates that he and those who support these ideas have not the faintest notion of what really is the ordinary life of the underpaid, the lower-grade workers of the country. If it is a case of an ordinary well-employed man merely changing over from one job to another, and losing a day's work in the process, he is not going to apply for unemployment benefit, any more than he is likely to apply for Poor Law relief. He is not going to hang about for hours outside the Employment Exchange for that purpose, and his case would not affect the matter at all. We plead for the abolition of this waiting period because of the many to whom its abolition is an urgent necessity, and only those to whom it would be an urgent necessity would for one moment think of taking advantage of that Clause in an Unemployment Insurance Bill.
The hon. Gentleman's other argument, that the nation cannot afford to pay £6,000,000, does not answer the point that was put forward by the Mover, to the effect that it is not going to cost the nation £6,000,000. All the way through this question of unemployment insurance, the assumption is that, if you reduce the amount of benefit, you are going to save that amount to the nation. You are not, however, doing anything of the kind. What you are doing is simply putting people on to the Poor Law, putting them on to the rates instead of on the taxes. The point, surely, that ought to appeal to business men opposite, and to people who talk so much about the effect of taxation and rating upon industry, is that a working man who has to go to the Poor Law is a greater burden upon industry itself, through the local rates, than if he received benefit from unemployment insurance.
The nation can afford it. This nation is not a poor nation, it is not an impoverished nation. We are not taxed any more now, proportionately, than we were 100 years ago, if we take the total national income. It is all nonsense to talk about this burden of taxation. I do not advocate, and no one on this side of the Committee advocates, waste of money, or raising taxation merely for the
sake of raising taxation; but we do say that, when it is a question of life, of the feeding of children, of the rearing of a future nation that will be physically, industrially, and morally fit, then for us to talk about £6,000,000 as though the nation could not afford it is altogether beside the mark. This nation can afford it. It is a wealthy nation. We can afford to throw away many millions in much less important and less remunerative ways. We press that this matter shall be dealt with in this Bill by passing this new Clause, to do away with the waiting period, and let those who pay towards unemployment insurance have a real insurance which they can depend upon whenever they are out of work.
Let it also be borne in mind that it is, after all, the workers of the country who pay the whole of it. They pay directly in the first place. If the employer pays a portion, he passes it on to the consumer. When it is thus passed on in the cost of commodities, it means that the nation is paying for it, and the nation is a working-class nation as to 95 per cent. of the population. Therefore, the workers pay the employers' share and the nation's share as well. If they do not pay in the form of direct taxation, they pay in indirect taxation in one way or another. There is no wealth that is not made by labour and by service, and those who give labour and service are those who provide what is necessary to maintain such things as unemployment insurance. The workers pay, and, therefore, we claim that the workers ought to be able to regard unemployment insurance as a real insurance, and that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should not come before the House of Commons with light and easy talk about changing from one occupation to another, even if it means only a day's starvation or under-feeding for children who are going to be the citizens of the future.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Although I have no hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be moved, I should like to deal one by one with the three objections he submitted against this proposed new Clause, in order to see what substance there may be in them. In the first place, he said that to abolish the waiting period altogether, and provide unemployment benefit immediately a person falls out of work, would be inconsistent with any scheme of insurance. I should
like to hear his justification for that statement, because, whether in the case of National Health Insurance, Workmen's Compensation, fire insurance, motor insurance, or any other kind of insurance, immediate benefits are available provided that the accident, ill-health, or misfortune which comes within an insurance policy can be proved. No person can receive unemployment pay until he has proved that he is out of work through no fault of his own, that he is available for work, fit for work, and anxious to have work should work be provided. It seems to me, therefore, that the argument of inconsistency with insurance is not an argument that will bear the light.
The second argument was that it would cost too much. The assumption of the Parliamentary Secretary that the nation or the Unemployment Insurance Fund cannot provide the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 which the adoption of this Clause would necessitate, involves assuming one of two things—either that the people who are thrown out of work can manage without income from any other source, or that the persons who are denied benefit must be dependent upon some form of charity or Poor Law relief; and, as has been already pointed out, to saddle upon a district a burden which is essentially a national burden is not meeting the situation in the best possible way. People who are thrown out of work through no fault of their own must be fed, whether they receive unemployment insurance benefit or not, and, because they must be fed, because they must be maintained during the first "week, as well as during the second or the tenth week, and because the Government compel them to be contributors to an insurance scheme, Members on these benches at all events are justified in demanding that, the first day a man or woman is thrown out of work, unemployment benefit should be available for them. Unless that is the case, this insurance scheme fails to insure its members, who are obliged to be members because the Act of Parliament compels them to make weekly contributions.
The third objection submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary was based upon some evidence given before the Committee, and certain observations made by the Committee in their Report.
Here, again, however, the Parliamentary Secretary is obliged to admit that the Report of the Committee indicates that, should a person be out of work for a period, he ought to be paid from the first day so long as his unemployment period covers a few weeks. That, presumably, is taken from the methods employed in the Workmen's Compensation Act, where for the first three days no payment is made unless the injured person is incapacitated for a period of a month, and should he be incapacitated for a month he is paid compensation for the first three days, which would not have been paid if he was incapacitated for a period of less than a month.

Mr. BETTERTON: That is not the new Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is perfectly true that that is not the new Clause we are submitting, but we have never agreed with the principle that a person who meets with injuries while following his normal occupation ought to be denied compensation even for the first three days, and this new Clause is absolutely consistent with the claims we have submitted when compensation Bills have been before the House. The hon. Gentleman said that if we were to give benefits from the first day a person became unemployed, moving possibly from one district to another, we should be giving money away in a reckless manner, and it would be totally inconsistent with any sort of sound logical business. Surely he must know that when a person falls out of work he is obliged to go where work is available, and the very act of moving from district to district in search of work ought to be an encouragement to the Government to provide him with unemployment pay for the days that he is out of work instead of encouraging him not to try to find work by robbing him of his first week's benefit under what is called, very wrongly I think, an insurance scheme. A man who is out of work sees an opportunity for a temporary job which may last, perhaps, a fortnight, perhaps ten days or perhaps three weeks, more or less. If he knows it is only going to last for two weeks and he is going to be called upon then to sacrifice another week's benefit, is that not encouraging him to ignore the temporary job? Are you not going to cultivate malingering by your refusal to accept this Clause? The right
hon. Gentleman knows full well that in resisting it he is imposing upon the poorest section of the community—not those who belong to a developing trade, who only fall out of work perhaps once in twelve months. One week in 52 may not make a vast amount of difference, although the average workman has not got enough to keep him for a week. The people who are intermittently employed, working for ten weeks, out of work for three or four, then in work again, the people who get employment four or five different times during one twelve months, are those from whom you are robbing to the extent of the number of times they are thrown out of work. I want to cite a witness who ought to bear some weight with the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking from that Bench two years ago the Prime Minister made this statement. If we have no influence and weight with the Government at least they ought to be willing to accept the words of their own Prime Minister. Dealing with unemployment the right hon. Gentleman said:
In considering unemployment there is another factor to be borne in mind. Unemployment is intermittent in most industries..… Last autumn a careful examination was made of a representative sample of the whole unemployment register, and out of a possible maximum of 125 weeks it was found that, of the males, 23 per cent. were employed for from nothing to 29 weeks; nearly 23 per cent. were employed for from 30 weeks to 59 weeks; over 23 per cent. for from 60 to 89 weeks, and over 30 per cent. for from 90 to the full 125 weeks; and except in circumstances where one big trade dominates a whole district, as does happen unfortunately in certain districts of the country, out of every hundred registered as unemployed in any month, more than 60 obtained work for some period in that month."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1925; col. 2072, Vol. 185.]
That is the type of man whom the right hon. Gentleman is penalising by refusing to accept this Clause.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is not this argument bearing on the new Clause on the next page in the name of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday)?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I do not perceive that it is out of order so far.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the hon. Member is not quite aware which new Clause is being moved. I do not think
he knows the business with which we are dealing at the moment. The figure quoted by the Prime Minister two years ago indicates that we have a fairly large body of employés who seldom, if ever, can regard themselves as having perfectly secure employment. They are intermittently employed, and every time they find themselves out of work after completing one particular job, one week's insurance benefits are taken from them. It may happen four or even 10 times in one year, and the very fact that you deprive men who are supposed to be in an insurance scheme of the benefits that the supposed insurance scheme provides for them discourages them from finding work for fear of these intermittent robberies which you are going to legalise by refusing to accept this Clause. The objection submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, namely that it was inconsistent to provide benefits that the men are obliged to pay for, will scarcely bear a moment's examination. That the cost is too high again will scarcely bear examination, and the further argument that the Commission indicated, that there should be a waiting period is not consistent with what the Commission actually say, for they definitely declare that if a person is out of work for a number of weeks the waiting period ought to be abolished and payment ought to be made from the first day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I have not the Report available, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) read out the paragraph and the Parliamentary Secretary had to agree with the statement.

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I am sure the hon. Member is under a quite innocent misapprehension. What I read out was a paragraph from the evidence put in by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) and Mr. Ernest Bevin on behalf of the Trade Union Congress. It was their evidence, and not the finding of the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Possibly there is a difference in the two things, but the result works out the same. The hon. Gentleman quoted one thing and my right hon. Friend quoted another.

Mr. BETTERTON: They were both the same.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Parliamentary Secretary failed to quote the whole of the evidence.

Mr. BETTERTON: I read the whole paragraph.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not going to be disturbed from the point I have made. This alleged Unemployment Insurance Bill fails to insure people who are obliged to contribute to it, and in no sort of insurance scheme can the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary show us an identical scheme in operation, whether national health, workmen's compensation, fire, motor or any other insurance, with the one we are debating now, and it is because you compel people to make weekly contributions that we are justified in demanding that if they are thrown out of work through no fault of their own, benefits ought to be available from the very first day.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am afraid the hon. Member did not quite appreciate why I raised the point I did. I was per fectly aware that we were discussing the new Clause which proposes the complete abolition of the waiting period. The hon. Member was illustrating the effect of the continuity rule, and as you, Mr. Hope, ruled that his remarks were not out of order, I should like to follow him on this point. The proposal is to do what, broadly speaking, no trade union does—

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Every trade union does it.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What no trade union does with regard to its own unemployment insurance scheme. I raised this point on the Second Reading, and a good many people challenged me. I had not with me any documentary evidence in support of my statement, but I have since inquired whether it was the practice of practically all trade unions not to pay for the first six days. It is true some of them, when the first six days are over, pay from the first working day, but it is equally true that most unions have a waiting period, and I think a waiting period is a reasonable thing to have for obvious reasons. According to the estimate of the Blanesburgh Committee, it would cost more than £6,000,000 a year.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have heard the hon. Member make the same statement
two or three times. Will he tell us of a trade union who have their rules affecting unemployment where a member of the union is compelled by law to make a weekly contribution?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not appreciate the point. The hon. Member was accepting my remarks as far as voluntary unemployment insurance schemes are concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] If that was not what he meant, I do not see the point of his interruption now. The only point of his interjection was that a trade union member need not join the out-of-work benefit part of the society. That is optional. That was his defence against my suggestion that after all trade unions have the rule we are now discussing, which it is proposed to abolish.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the hon. Member know there is no such optional clause with regard to unemployed benefit in a trade union?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is no optional Clause It is all compulsory? The hon. Member has not appreciated the point of the interruption of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He was trying to get out of a difficulty by saying trade union membership of the out-of-work scheme was not compulsory, and because it was not compulsory they were entitled to have a waiting period, whereas in a compulsory scheme we are not entitled to have it. That is the only point of the interjection as I understand it. Let us look at it. Whether the scheme is compulsory or not, you only have a certain amount of money to play with. Broadly speaking, I suppose the income of the fund is some £50,000,000 a year. The exact amount depends on the proportion of people who are having benefit, and, if there are a lot of persons out of work, the income is somewhat less. It is now in the neighbourhood of £50,000,000 a year. What we are engaged in discussing is what is the best use to which to put this £50,000,000 a year. It is not as if the Minister or anyone else was in a position to produce the £6,000,000 a year, or rather more, that this new Clause would cost.
If this Clause be carried, according to the estimate of the Blanesburgh Committee—and I am now coming back to
the point from which I was taken by the hon. Member for Don Valley—it would cost rather more than £6,000,000 a year; in other words, an eighth of the income of the Fund. This means that, roughly speaking, you are going to reduce your scale of benefits by an eighth in other directions if you are going to finance this proposal. It may be quite right to argue that this might be a wiser expenditure financially than that which is proposed in the Bill, but I ask hon. Members opposite to realise that if they carry this new Clause they must come along with a proposal in the Schedule to the effect that benefit to married man must be cut down by three shillings a week and that benefit to single men must be cut down by two shillings, or something in that proportion.

Mr. BUCHANAN.: Might I suggest that if the Government accept this Clause there is an alternative financial proposal. The Government can—they have full power to add to the £50,000,000—borrow £6,000,000 to finance the scheme.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is interesting. The proposal to borrow £6,000,000 is not a proposal to borrow £6,000,000 for one year, even if a case could be made out, but to borrow £6,000,000 yearly in perpetuity. I suggest that that is thoroughly bad finance. Most people are convinced that the obligations of the State for the moment are as high as the State can reasonably bear, having regard to the effect of taxation upon industry. I think that it is up to us to do the best we can with the money that is available and not to propose schemes which would merely add to the unemployment problem instead of giving us less unemployment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Where does that £50,000,000 appear?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot look up the exact amount of £50,000,000. I mentioned the sum in round figures. I was examining the reports for last year, and in round figures the income is about £50,000,000 a year. It may be £51,500,000 or £49,000,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is not quite so much under the new scheme.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The new scheme pro duced—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting rather wide.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise. I have been led away by interruptions and have not strayed from my own choice. The hon. Member for Don Valley referred to the hardship that you may inflict upon people 10 times a year, but surely it cannot be inflicted 10 times a year. Under the existing rule the benefit period is six weeks, and six into 52 would not go 10 times. There is rather a difference. As a matter of fact, a man can serve his maximum six times a year, and that is one of the reasons why I put down a new Clause suggesting 10 weeks instead of six weeks. After further consideration, I withdrew the Clause, not because I did not think it a proper one, but because the Minister has put down an Amendment to the Schedule in similar terms. Therefore, a considerable part of the argument used by the hon. Member for Don Valley will be swept away when that is put to the Committee.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: So will your remarks be swept away!

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No, they will not, because this is a proposal to spend £6,000,000 which cannot be found within the four corners of the finance of the scheme, whereas the proposal put forward by me, which the Minister is accepting, involves an expenditure of about £400, on which is part of the emergency margin allowed! in the Actuary's estimate. Therefore, the proposal which I made is a proposal which is financially possible, whereas the proposal we are now considering is quite impossible. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the action of the Minister in accepting the Amendment which I put down and which, I believe, will remove a great proportion of the difficulty which has arisen.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I cannot understand the statement of the hon. Member for Heading (Mr. H. Williams) that trade unions have a waiting period in the same way as the Bill is proposing. The hon. Member made the statement several times, but I think he knows the position quite well so far as the trade unions are concerned. While most of them have a waiting period, if a man is off work for more than three or six days he goes back to the first day. There are certain
exceptions. There are some unions that do not pay even if a man is off for six or 12 days or more, but, speaking broadly and generally, the trade unions pay back to the first day. I had not the privilege of listening to the Parliamentary Secretary when he was making his statement on this New Clause, but I heard £6,250,000 mentioned in the speeches of several hon. Members as the sum that would have to be taken from the Treasury to cover the payment if this New Clause were carried. This £6,250,000 has a familiar sound. I think it is the £6,250,000 that was mentioned when we were in Committee on the 1925 Bill. If it be the £6,250,000 we discussed then, I would like to remind both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that that sum includes two things —not only the waiting period but the right to waiver. The figure given for the waiting period was £4,750,000, and £1,500,000 was set apart for the right to waiver. The re-establishment of the right to waiver—

Mr. BETTERTON: I am speaking only from my recollection. My recollection of the sum of £4,300,000 was the difference between a waiting period of six days and a waiting period of three days. I do not myself recollect that there was any Amendment moved similar to the one moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) to abolish the waiting period altogether. That is my recollection; I may be wrong.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I may be wrong in stating £4,750,000 as against £4,300,000, but I think that the £6,250,000 mentioned to-night was the sum of £6,250,000 we discussed on the 1925 Bill and also discussed on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. If the Parliamentary Secretary says the difference is between three days and six days, I accept that.

Mr. BETTERTON: I think so.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I stand corrected. I want, in a few words, to point out to the Minister and to Members on the other side of the Committee the hardship that comes to thousands of men through the saving of that £4,300,000. We speak of a three days' and a six days' waiting period. I want to tell the Committee, as I told the Committee in 1925, that the
waiting period is not really six days but 11 days. This is how it works out. Men are generally paid off on the Saturday. They sign for a full week following, then they commence again on the Monday, signing on on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The Employment Exchange week ends on the Wednesday. Three more days go over to the week-end, and the man draws three days' pay. That is to say, if he is off for the fortnight he gets three days' pay, which, in my opinion, makes 11 days' waiting period, and not six days. What happens at the other end? When a man starts work in the engineering shops and in the shipyards on a Wednesday, which is very often the* day on which a man does start, he works Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday of that week and the whole of the following week before he touches any money. That is 10 days at the other end of the scale; 11 days at the beginning and 10 days at the end before he receives any payment. The real hardship is that when a man is starting work or is paid off he cannot go to the guardians for relief. He is refused relief. He is regarded as a man who has immediately finished work, and therefore it is considered that he cannot be in distress. Therefore, very acute hardship is felt by a man and his family when he is paid off.
The same thing occurs when he starts work again. He has 10 waiting days, in many cases, before he gets any pay, and then, perhaps, he does not get anything like a full week on account of shortage of time, wet weather, and shortage of material. I want to put it to the Minister very seriously, that if he cannot accept the new Clause, he should certainly give serious consideration to the hardship in districts such as my own where we had 60 per cent. of unemployment when the average for the whole country was only 18 per cent. Happily this has fallen now, but these periods of starting and finishing are nightmares to some of our people. The hon. Member for Beading very cleverly pointed out that this cannot occur 10 times in a year. I want to say to him that if he experienced it once in a year it would be enough for him. I sincerely commend the suggestion to the Minister that if he cannot accept the new Clause he might give serious consideration to the Amendment which follows.

Miss WILKINSON: I should like to back up the plea that has been made by the previous speakers that if the Minister cannot go so far as to abolish the waiting period altogether he should restore the position that existed before the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925. I think and everybody who had experience of the three days' waiting period felt that, although it was a definite hardship, the hardship was nothing like so acute as has existed since the three days' waiting period has been extended to one week. I feel that of all the apparently small economies obtained by the Act of 1925 there is no economy that has, as a matter of fact, produced so much hardship as the extension of the waiting period to one week. If it were only one week, it would be bad enough, but in most cases it is not one week but very nearly two weeks by the time the man actually gets his pay. I have had the matter brought to my notice very pointedly by a case in my own constituency where a man whose wife had fainted through lack of food came to see me. The man had been out of work for some time and had seven children dependent upon him, five of his own and two children of his dead brother. After several months' work he had one or two weeks of four days. Then, when he was out of work, he applied for his benefit, and he had to wait a fortnight before he got anything at all. That man had 22s. to last him for nearly three weeks. Before he actually received his benefit he had that extraordinarily small sum, plus a few loaves of bread that he had been able to get from the guardians. As the family were in such want for bread, it, of course, had to be given to the children. The man had not had any food for 36 hours. The obvious answer to that is, that the guardians exist to give relief and that this man should have applied to the guardians. But when he did apply to the guardians, they did not relieve him to the extent that was necessary for himself and the children.
7.0 p.m.
In these extremely depressed areas the guardians are literally at their wits end. They have not anything like the money required to relieve all the necessitous cases that come before them. They tend naturally to take the view that, if there is a waiting period fixed by the Ministry of Labour, a man must get through somehow. If they do not take this view, it means that the rates go bounding up
again, and then, there is further pressure on these badly depressed industries. I suggest that, had the Minister or his colleagues considered that things were going to remain so continuously bad, they would not have extended the period as they did in 1925, but things in these particular areas of which I have been speaking are not getting better. They are steadily getting worse, and what that means is that the physique and stamina of the people is not able to face the deprivation of this week's benefit. If you have men who are normally in full work, even if the wages are low, it is possible that perhaps one week might not do them so much harm, but here you have, not one, but hundreds of cases of men who are normally just on the very last ounce of physical strength.
I want to ask the Minister if he will consider this point. In these areas, where the only work available is very heavy, if you have men so under-nourished, it diminishes their chances of getting a job and throws more on to the public funds. It is not an economy but an extravagance to get men down to such a low standard of nourishment that they are not able to accept work or to do the work even when they get it. That is the position in many cases where you have areas of either deep depression or where casual labour is the main labour open to the men. It is an extravagance in another way, because, if the men know that they have to wait, not two or three days but nearly a fortnight, it means that they lose so much that there is a sort of discouragement to look for work. We have had many Debates in this House about what is or is not genuinely seeking work. The Blanesburgh Report has pointed out that often the only way to decide it is to decide what is in the mind of the man.
Will the Minister really blame a man in the position I have quoted? Taking the man whose case I have given, with himself, his wife and his dependants, he would receive from the Unemployment Fund 37s., or in two weeks he would receive 74s. If he got a job of four days he would receive, in fact, 22s. for the four days. Therefore the taking of that job would mean a loss to him in the fortnight of 52s. When you have a man like that, with a wife and seven children dependent on him, is he doing his duty as a father to those children if he accepts
work for these four days when it means starving the children or seeing his wife fainting? You have to deal with the primitive instincts in human nature. When a man is down to this low stage, these primitive instincts are all that is left to him. and, if he knows that his acceptance of that job means privation for his wife and family, nobody can blame him if he is not there when the job arrives. This man took the job and suffered in that way. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, if he cannot abolish the waiting period, to give very serious consideration to this Amendment which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members, and see whether it is not possible to go back to the 1925 period, and at least try it for a year so as to get us over this extraordinarily bad period. Perhaps when things are better you may be able to go back to this work again, but during this period when things are so terribly bad I want to suggest to the Minister that this £3,000,000, which is going to be saved by the waiting period being extended to a week instead of three days, is not really being saved to the public, because if it does not come from this fund it will come from other quarters, and really it is not being saved in health and stamina, but is definitely going to make it more and more difficult for men to get work. I do want to appeal to the Minister with all the earnestness of which I am capable to see if he cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I want to reinforce the plea which has been made by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) that—as the Minister has refused the Clause moved originally by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short)—he should accept the Amendment. Personally, I do not think that, reverting to one or two of the arguments used, the Government have really a very strong case in quoting the trade union practice as a precedent for maintaining the waiting period. After all, as I understand trade union practice, it was never assumed that the trade unions had initiated a system of insurance. It was some slight protection that they offered to their members, but they never considered it as a system of insurance, and, of course, what they were able to do was always contingent
on their extremely limited income. Trade unions in the past have rendered tremendous service to the State in the work which they have done in the maintenance of unemployed men, and, while that experience may have been valuable to the Government, I do not think it is quite fair that the Government should initiate the system of what they call a statutory right to unemployment pay and say that it is maintaining the system which some of the trade unions were driven to because of sheer limitation of. funds.
I should like to point out that there is this question as to the ability of a man. to maintain himself in the initial period. Of course, if a man were earning the wages that some hon. Gentlemen opposite fondly imagine he earns, it would be a. simple proposition that he should maintain himself for the first week of unemployment, but where you have a very low average wage it is another matter. We have been told on pretty good authority recently that there are about 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 of the working population with an average wage of about 50s.a week. On the basis of to-day's prices, that is just about equal to 25s. or 26s. before the War. At any rate, it is not much of a wage on which to maintain anything for the first week out of employment. There has been in recent years, since 1920, in our industrial life not only a large amount of absolute unemployment but an exceedingly large amount of short-time worked by men in different occupations. There are trades in this country where the-period of short time has been so prolonged as to extend to years. In the mining industry, for instance, miners would be penalised under this arrangement. You can have a man working for three days and then off for three days, and then working for a week or four days and off for another three days, and so on, and he never earns a decent week's wages and cannot go for benefit and can get no Poor Law relief either. As a matter of fact, the condition of many men like that is infinitely worse than that of the man who is permanently out of work. This would apply to men in the cotton trade, the engineering trade, and many other occupations. I want to argue that this question of providing £3,000,000 is not the bugbear that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) would have us assume it to be. As a matter of
fact, I understand that the finance of this Bill is based on the assumption or the finding of the Departmental Committee which was set up for the purpose of arriving at what was likely to be the average amount of unemployment over a cycle. That average was assumed to be 6 per cent. As a matter of fact, the Report refers to the figure of 6 per cent. as
being the rate employed in the estimates made for the recent Departmental Committee on the unemployment insurance scheme.
Further on, in dealing with this matter, the actuary says:
I estimate that if over a cycle of years the rate of unemployment experienced should be 6 percent., an average surplus of about £5,400,000 a year will arise. In these circumstances the rates of contribution may, by Section 4 (2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, be less than the 'maximum' rates; I estimate that the surplus of £5,400,000 would be sufficient to admit of reductions from the maximum of 1d. per week in both the employers' and the employés contributions.
If that be correct, them the argument of the Government that it is going to cost £6,000,000 on the present rate of contributions is entirely wrong.

Mr. BETTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman making his case on the* supposition that there is no waiting period or that there is one of three days?

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am supposing that there is no waiting period. It is assumed that the abolition of the three days' waiting period would cost £3,000,000.

Mr. BETTERTON: That is our estimate for three days.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, £3,000,000. What I am quoting is the estimated surplus provided on the hypothesis on which the Bill is based, that the average unemployment for a cycle of years would be 6 per cent. That is the Actuary's estimate, and on the present contributions there would be this £5,400,000 per annum. If that be true, then the £3,000,000 is provided for over a cycle of years, and it seems to me that here, in the Blanesburgh Report and in the

Actuary's own submission, is the strongest argument for giving this benefit to the men who pay and of making this scheme into a real insurance fund and so give benefits to the men, almost as soon as they need them, the results of their own thrift and patience.

Surely the Government could see their way to do that. If one assumes that even all that is not correct and that the 6 per cent. is slightly wrong and is not quite the average—even then, taking the £3,000,000 over a cycle of years, there would still be a surplus of £2,500,000. Surely, with that surplus of £5,400,000, and granting the concession that we ask for, there is a margin big enough and safe enough to secure the Fund against any demands upon it? That is assuming the Government's estimates are correct. In face of this Report of the Actuary and his own submission of figures, as an answer to the Government's contention, I do sincerely trust that the Minister will see his way to grant this concession and to maintain the Insurance Fund in the condition in which it now stands, and which the trade unions themselves asked for in their evidence. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask. The argument that the country cannot afford it cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the Actuary himself admits that the Fund can sustain it without making any demands upon the country. If there should be a few thousands one way or the other or even half a million, surely we are not going to argue that this country is so poor and so far down in its financial basis that it has to refuse this small concession to men who are compelled to pay, from whom large sums of money are raised and from whom deductions go on week after week, and who need this assistance and are in vital need of it at a very acute period of their lives. I sincerely trust that we shall do the decent thing by granting the concession contained in the Amendment.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 256.

Division No. 433.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bromfield, William


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, Walter
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Barnes, A.
Charleton, H. C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Broad, F. A.
Clowes, S.


Cluse, W S.
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Connolly, M.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove. W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Dennison, R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Dunnico. H.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Edge, Sir William
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Forrest, W.
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves. T.
Ritson, J.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James
Windsor. Walter


Harris, Percy A
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wright, W.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair. Major Sir A. (Caithness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gates, Percy


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goff, Sir Park


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Clarry, Reginald George
Grace, John


Atholl, Duchess of
Clayton, G. C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grant, Sir J. A.


Balniel, Lord
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bareclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cooper, A. Duff
Grotrian, H. Brent


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cope, Major William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Berry, Sir George
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Harland, A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. w.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Haslam, Henry C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, C.
Hawke, John Anthony


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ellis, R. G.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Buchan, John
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hills, Major John Waller


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Butt, Sir Alfred
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fielden, E. B.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Campbell, E. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslsy)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. s.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Huntingfield, Lord




Hurd, Percy A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Iveagh, Countess of
Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Jephcott, A. R.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Storry-Deans, R.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Nuttall, Ellis
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Oakley, T.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Kindersley,. Major Guy M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pilcher, G.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Power, Sir John Cecil
Templeton, W. P.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Loder, J. de V.
Preston, William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Raine, Sir Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waddington, R.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Warner, Brigadier General W. W.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


McLean, Major A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wells, S. R.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rye, F. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Salmon, Major I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Withers, John James


Malone, Major P. B.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Meller, R. J.
Savery, S. S.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)



Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shepperson, E. W.



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Amendment as to meaning of continuous period of unemployment.)

In Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923 (which defines a continuous period of unemployment), as amended in the Second Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, for the words "six weeks," there shall be substituted the words "twelve months."— [Mr. Hayday.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The position is made clear by the terms of the Amendment. It is clear that there is no connection between this new Clause and the continuity rule which gives facilities for unemployed persons being able to make their continuity of signing in order to qualify for benefit. There have been a great many developments which have lengthened the possible period for benefit to be drawn after once it has been qualified for, and there are these continuous signings within the meaning of the Act. This Amendment deals with a type of case which calls for assistance,
and I hope the Minister will be able to accept the new Clause, in support of which I can give a few reasons. I am certain the Department could also give some emphatic reasons why this particular waiting period should not be called for more than once in every 12 months. Part I of the National Health Insurance scheme provides that the one waiting period should last for 12 months, so far as sickness insurance is concerned. Surely, it is not asking too much that the same rule should apply in the case of unemployment insurance.
I note that the Minister has an Amendment on the Paper on the Schedule to enlarge the present period of six weeks to 10 weeks. I would remind the Committee that even the Conservative conference at Cardiff passed a resolution urging that the present period of six weeks should be extended to 12 weeks. I scarcely expect that the Minister will quote the evidence submitted in this connection by the industrial movement before the Blanesburgh Committee. This new Clause is on all fours with the evidence then submitted. Our case was
submitted for the purpose of examination, and it had to run the gauntlet of possible examination. What are the grounds for the new Clause? In the first place, I know of many cases where four weeks and up to five weeks of waiting time has been given in the course of one year by unemployed persons. I know that it is possible for six waiting weeks to be given during the course of 12 months under the existing circumstances. There are cases where a person has had four periods of unemployment in a year and has only drawn 10 days' benefit out of six weeks of unemployment.
A case was brought to my notice less than a month ago showing that a fine type of man had on two occasions just missed being thrown out of employment within six weeks by one day. He had six weeks and one day of employment, with the result that he had to put in another week of sacrifice. That one day extra over the six weeks was sufficient to call for another week of sacrifice for him in regard to the waiting period, and during that year he had given four weeks of waiting periods, and had only drawn 10 days of benefit. Roughly he had been unemployed for six weeks in one year and was only able to secure 10 days' benefit. This is the type of case that should be encouraged. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) during the Second Reading Debate said that there were employers who, out of consideration for the man, arranged that when work was shortening up there should be a rota of discharge in order to bring the unemployed person within the six weeks rule. I do not doubt there are cases where the employer feels that it is not right at the end of the sixth week to say to his employee that he can go to work on the Monday, knowing that the one day's work means a sacrifice of six days' unemployment benefit to the man. But I know of many oases where the employer has kept the man on until the middle of the seventh week knowing that he will deprive him of his right to benefit.
These are just the type of men that we ought to help to the utmost of our power. They are men of intelligence, willing to work, men who seek for work and put in every possible half-day available. They are men who want to be free from the temptation to approach
their foreman in order to be discharged two or three days before their time so that they may qualify for benefit. And here I should like to say a word or two as to the general type of criticism which has been offered to this class of man; that he is an idler, who too often draws the dole. Attention is called to him because of his frequent periods of unemployment. I want to read a passage from a lecture given at the London School of Economics by the principal officer of the department. It is about time we put in a plea for these men who have continuously to make this sacrifice of three or four weeks waiting period during 12 months because of the short periods of their unemployment. It is time the country knew the opinion of the department as to the exact state of affairs. I was present at this lecture and in the chair was the right hon. Dr. Macnamara, an ex-Minister of Labour. The lecture was given in 1924. He said:
But, taking the matter broadly—and particularly if we look at the great manufacturing and, seaport towns of this country —the plain fact is that there has been no work of any kind or at any price for the great majority of those who have been unemployed. Let me illustrate the position by giving a few figures from an analysis of 10,000 claims made last November.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What year was this?

Mr. HAYDAY: The analysis was made in 1923. The lecturer goes on:
This analysis was made in such a way that the results can pretty safely be accepted as typical of the whole number. The figures show that two-thirds of the males drawing benefit and nearly three-quarters of the females were persons who in normal times would usually be in steady employment, while if those who would "normal times be fairly well employed are added, these proportions become nearly 90 per cent. At the other end of the scale are the persons classified as ' verging on the unemployable.' These amounted only to 3.6 per cent. for males and 2 per cent. for females, and consisted for the most part of elderly workpeople, who in the past had not infrequently been for many years in pretty constant employment. These figures, be it noted, are proportions of the numbers drawing benefit; if the number classified as ' verging on the unemployable ' were taken as a proportion of the whole number of insured persons, the figure would be a fraction of 1 per cent.
In the opinion of the chief officer of the Department, 1 per cent. represents the sum total of what may be described as doubtful recipients of unemployment
benefit. That is very significant, for it shows that where you can you ought to protect these men. They are men who search for work, who are ready to snap up any occupation without any thought as to whether it is going to last more or less than six weeks. Their case calls for a greater degree of protection than the case of the man who can go on, and will be able to go on under the new conditions, for a possible period of 78 months with one week of waiting period. The man who is thrown out of employment just a day or two over the six weeks' period must give the State another week of waiting period. I do not think that is fair. In the next year a similar series of lectures was given at the London School of Economics. I presided over -one at which another official of the Department, in almost the identical words used by the official the year previously, made the same statement except this, that he did not refer to the fraction of 1 per cent. He spoke of the analysis of the same 10,000, of the same percent-Ages that were found, and demonstrated that there was no desire, generally, on the part of the unemployed persons to evade their proper responsibilities in relation to unemployment and the Fund. I hope the Minister will be able to go beyond what he proposes to do later on, and will meet our request in this new Clause.
Believing them to be the type of men I think they are, you confront them with this difficulty: if they find employment for rather more than six weeks and are then thrown out, they are off benefit for nine days. What can they ever hope to save in that period to keep them going for the nine days before they are able to draw three days of unemployment benefit? These men are thrifty, and although they find it difficult to make ends meet, they are the last persons who desire to appeal to the board of guardians to make up that one week. It is unfair to expect them to do so. The better the type of man, the more genuine he is, the more temptation you put in his way. I put it to any sensible man; if I am confronted with the alternative of being thrown out of employment three or four days after my six weeks have gone, or after 10 weeks as the Minister suggests in a later Amendment—although that does not meet the case—is it not a temptation to me to try and see my em-
ployer on the matter? I should not be wrong in so doing and in pointing out to him my difficulty. We have heard a great deal about the principle of insurance. As it is applied to this waiting period it is perhaps the weakest part of the scheme. It should protect the man who has short periods of unemployment rather than penalise him as it, in fact, does. It is most unfair to the man who who is unemployed for 10 weeks in the year that he has to give four weeks of that as a waiting period, and it is contrary to any principle of unemployment insurance.
If we are to consider such questions in connection with unemployment insurance, if we are to be most careful to guard against any abuse of the fund, if we are to see how soon we can wipe out the deficit of the fund, and if we are to wipe out that deficit by hitting those we ought to treat best, then I say that it is a very false line upon which to proceed. I hope I have been able to convince the Minister that the suggestion he proposes to make later will not fully meet the situation. Let it be a clear cut proposal; one waiting week to be given to the credit of the Fund, one week to be sacrificed by all persons alike to the Fund in any one benefit year. If you do that it will be more satisfactory, and the best type of your unfortunate unemployed will be thankful to know that the circumstances permit him to draw the benefit to which he is entitled.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I desire to detain the Committee only for a few moments, because I have already said something on this point when we were discussing the previous new Clause. I was rather interested in the figures quoted by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), both as regards the figures themselves and the source from which they came. A few nights ago when I was urging my views with regard to a particular question on this Bill I also quoted from the 1 per cent. sample, and hon. Members opposite thought it was very improper to base my arguments on a 1 per cent. sample. I am glad that I shall now have the support of the hon. Member for West Nottingham when I quote from the same sample.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It all depends what is your percentage.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was dealing with precisely the same percentage as the hon. Member for West Nottingham.

Mr. HAYDAY: Pardon me; you were dealing with the White Paper percentages, not with a ten thousand sample. This is a percentage of all the men. Yours was a percentage so far as money was concerned.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is quite wrong. The document from which I was quoting is in the Eighteenth" Abstract of Labour Statistics, and is precisely the same sample as that mentioned by the hon. Member. If that is quoted in future I hope that hon. Members opposite will no longer challenge the merit of the figures.

Mr. HAYDAY: If it deals with that we accept it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It does not deal with that, but that is based on it. Mine was a quotation from the original document and that is based on it. I showed how six weeks continuity rule inflicted certain hardships, but I am certainly not going to support a proposal for 12 months. We have already discussed the question of a waiting period. If you extend the continuity rule to 12 months, it is evident that you will impose on the Fund a very Heavy burden indeed. It would be rather difficult for the Actuary to make a precise estimate. I do not know whether an estimate has been made, but I contend that the Amendment would probably cost in the neighbourhood of £2,500,000 to £3,000,000. That is my own view.

Mr. OLIVER: £500,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is what it would cost if the six weeks' period were extended to 13 weeks. I have not a copy of the Blanesburgh Report in my hand, but if the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) will examine the Report, I think he will find I am correct in stating that the extension of the rule from six weeks to 13 weeks would cost £500,000, but the further extension to 12 months would cost a very large figure indeed. What it is I do not know, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us later. My opinion is that it would be from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000, and I am certain that that is a sum outside the margin of the Actuary's estimate. For that reason I feel compelled to oppose an Amendment
which would wreck the finances of the scheme. With other hon. Members I put on the Paper a new Clause, in which I proposed 10 weeks. The hon. Member for West Nottingham has drawn attention to the fact that that is not the same period as was proposed during the Conservative Conference at Cardiff. At Cardiff there was a proposal that the period should be altered to 12 weeks, and that received the endorsement of the Conference, but on looking into the points and trying to find out the financial implications, I came definitely to the conclusion that 12 weeks was too much to-ask, having regard to the general financial scope of the Measure.
The reason why I suggest 10 weeks is simple. This continuity rule operates very harshly in between the holiday periods, Easter, Whitsuntide and Bank Holiday. The gaps between are all in excess of six weeks. If Easter comes early, the gap between Whitsuntide and August Bank Holiday hardly ever, if ever, exceeds 10 weeks. Therefore, I think 10 weeks would bridge that gap, and as 10 weeks is within the financial possibilities of the scheme, I embodied 10 weeks in an Amendment. That Amendment I have withdrawn because the Minister is accepting the present new Clause for drafting purposes and is moving an Amendment to the fourth Schedule, and to that Amendment my Friends and I have attached our names. I agree with a great deal of the speech that the last speaker made, but I believe that the Amendment from six weeks to 10 weeks will alleviate a greater measure of hardship. For that reason, I oppose his Amendment and I hope that in due course he will support that which the Minister is to move.

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member who moved this new Clause, whose knowledge of the Insurance Acts is profound, will agree that during a succession of years the span in the bridge between one period and another which was linked up to make a continuous whole has tended to increase from time to time, and it has thereby, beyond any question, given very great relief to large numbers of unemployed persons. Before I deal with this particular new Clause, I wish to make one comment upon the hon. Member's argument that what he is proposing is on all-fours with the law and practice
in health insurance, and that, therefore, health insurance provides a complete analogy to what he now proposes. That really is not quite the case. It is true that under the health insurance scheme two claims are linked together to avoid a waiting period, if the second is made within 12 months of the first. But in health insurance, benefit is subject to a reduction after 26 weeks, whereas under the unemployment scheme there is no question of reduction of benefit. The analogy, therefore, is not quite complete.
The hon. Gentleman proposes that the span of the bridge should be increased from six weeks to 12 months, and I am invited by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) to give some estimate of what would be the cost of that proposal, if accepted. The actuary told us in the Report attached to the Blanes-burgh Report that a prolongation from six weeks to three months on 6 per cent. of unemployment would cost £500,000. How much it would cost with an extension to 12 months he could not say. Therefore, I am unable to give any estimate as to what would be the cost if this proposal were accepted, but I am prepared, as the hon. Gentleman has already noticed, to go some way to meet the view of the hon. Gentleman and those who support the Amendment; I am prepared to accept the principle of it, and, if this new Clause be read a Second time, I will move as an Amendment to it to leave out the words "twelve months" and to insert instead thereof the words "ten weeks," which would carry out in a more convenient, and I believe in the only proper way, the proposal which we have set down in the Schedule.

Mr. OLIVER: I am sure the Committee will be very grateful for the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is true that 10 weeks will be an improvement on six weeks, but even that concession would not destroy the very vicious principle now laid down in the six weeks, or, as it be, in the 10 weeks' period, because it will still penalise the man who ought not to be penalised but helped, namely, the man who seeks work at different places and is unfortunate in one year, say, to have four periods of unemployment, or, say, works 10 or 11 weeks and for different firms in the one year. It will mean that that person will be penalised to the extent that, instead
of having one six days' waiting period in that one year he will have four weeks waiting period covering the whole of the year. That is wrong in principle, because these are the men who ought to be helped and not handicapped if they endeavour to find suitable work. Such men are subject to the same test as every other person who receives benefit. If they are not genuinely unemployed they will not get their benefits, and if they leave their work through improper conduct they will not get their benefit. But, in addition to that, it means that those men who are employed more or less in casual employment will be penalised four and five times in advance of people more successful in holding employment for the longer period.
I would have liked to hear the Parliamentary Secretary give more consideration to the principle. We heard the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who based his objection purely on actuarial calculation. We have opposed the financial proposals time and time again from this side, and the hon. Member for Reading has supported us. If an Amendment that is put forward to ameliorate the conditions of the unfortunate unemployed is always to be challenged because it is outside the principle laid down in the actuary's report, I do not see why people, who have been consistent in supporting every form of economy, so far as unemployment is concerned, can justify that argument now. While we are glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to extend the period to 10 weeks, we are sorry that he has not been able to make the concession for a considerably longer period.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am very glad indeed that the Minister has accepted the Amendment so far as the 10 weeks are concerned. I wish to refer to the need of encouraging casual labour for farms at various times of the year. One of our greatest difficulties in this connection has been to get the casual labourer to understand how he stands as far as the Unemployment Insurance Acts are concerned. I had put an Amendment on the Paper, but as far as I and the Friends associated with me are concerned, the Government's concession will very largely meet our point, and if we are given the 10 weeks we will not press for the 12 weeks for which we were to ask.
When this Bill becomes law I hope that the Ministry of Labour will send out a pamphlet explaining the position in regard to this particular Amendment, because in the agricultural districts it is impossible for a man who is in an insured tirade and wants to take work in an uninsured trade like agriculture to know whether he is liable to forfeit benefit or not; also he does not know what length of waiting period he must have before he can take up his old employment again or go on what is colloquially known as the dole. The correct state of affairs is not known at all to the labourer in an insured trade, nor is it known to the farmer who may employ him. It is certainly not known to the smallholder who may want occasional labour for hoeing or for lifting sugar beet. I would like such a pamphlet as I have suggested to be sent to some place where men can read it. I would suggest the post office. In agricultural districts very few people go to the Employment Exchanges, but they do go to the post offices. I hope, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman accepts my suggestion and sends round these pamphlets, he will send them where they can be read.

Mr. BETTERTON: I accept it.

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is just one further point. I think, myself, that the period of 10 weeks will meet the case as far as harvesting is concerned. I am not sure that it will meet the cases of labourers who are at present engaged in sugar-beet factories. As far as can be ascertained at present, they have only four to six months' employment in the year and, during the rest of the year, they have to find casual labour. I hope the Minister will pay special attention to this new form of labour which is spreading in the agricultural districts. I again thank the hon. Gentleman for the concession in reference to the 10 weeks period.

Mr. SHORT: While the Committee will welcome the concession which the Parliamentary Secretary has announced, we must express our dissatisfaction at his inability to go further in order to meet, not merely a small number of cases affected by holiday periods, but the constantly recurring sets of cases which in-
volve hardship, pain and suffering to the insured contributors affected by this continuity rule. The proposal to increase the period from six weeks to 10 weeks will only touch the fringe of the cases with which we are all familiar, and which my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday)—who speaks with such authority on the subject—so ably cited. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is not, I regret, in his place at the moment. He has opposed, as far as I am aware, almost every proposal in connection with this Bill to make any extension of benefit and he has usually done so on the basis of cost. I thought the Minister, if he could not accept the proposed New Clause, would at any rate have extended the period further than 10 weeks, because I understand the Conservative Conference at Cardiff passed a resolution in favour of 12 weeks.
It is remarkable that not one out of the 400 Conservative Members in this House tabled an Amendment or a New Clause seeking to carry out that resolution. Not only so, but the hon. Member for Reading has sought to whittle it down. In his Second Reading speech he suggested eight or nine weeks and then —I think it was after reading a speech of mine—he increased it to 10. But we have the position that not a single Member of the Conservative party has sought to implement the resolution of their own conference and the Minister has absolutely refused to implement it. He has compromised on the basis of a 10 weeks' period because it is suggested by the hon. Member for Reading that such a proposal would meet some of the difficulties arising from the holiday periods. But there are difficulties quite apart from the holiday periods. They occur every month and every week in my constituency. They call for remedy and, as the Minister refused to abolish or reduce the waiting period, he might have gone to the extent of accepting a proposal which has been approved by the Conservative Conference. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has ignored the rank and file of his own party. What influence have they upon the legislation of the Government which they support, when they cannot get one Member to move in favour of their resolution? We are told by the actuary it will cost £500,000 to increase the period from six weeks to 12 weeks. The Gov-
ernment refuses to hearken to the voice of the rank and file of the Conservative party, because it involves finding £500,000. Is that £500,000 to come from increased contributions from workpeople and employers? No, because as the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) has pointed out there is a surplus of £5,400,000. That is still to remain, accumulating every year, and the Minister refuses to spend £500,000 for this purpose.
That is a nice message for the Minister of Labour and the Conservative Government to send to the Primrose Dames and the workers of the Conservative party throughout the country. It will be a nice message for the supporters of the Tory organisation in my constituency. One expected something better, after all the shouting and all the resolutions. One expected the Minister to say to the Conservative rank and file, "In your name and on your behalf we will extend this period from six weeks to twelve weeks." The right hon. Gentleman however has decided that it shall be extended only to ten weeks. He has decided to continue the hardship and the pain and the suffering which is involved to the working class by the shorter period. "No," he says, "for the sake of £500,000 we will not hearken unto you; rather will we see you suffer the pain and anxiety which is involved. It will be less under the ten weeks provision, but we must let it continue, rather than find the £500,000 and, we shall allow this imposition to remain on the working classes who are compelled by law to contribute whether they desire it or not to the Insurance Fund." I have no doubt as to what the opinion of the country will be, not merely about this particular proposal, but about the Bill as a whole. It will be a condemnation of the actions and activities of the Government.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to meet the argument with regard to cost which I advanced on a previous Amendment, namely, that the fund itself on the present basis provides a surplus of £5,400,000?

Mr. BETTERTON: To the argument which the hon. Member advanced the answer is shortly this. You may spend the money in various ways and we have to decide which class of claimant we think is best entitled to it. If you spend money in one direction, you cannot spend
the same money in another direction. If you spend it in shortening the waiting period, or in any other way like that, there is so much less to spend in benefits under other parts of the scheme.

Mr. WALLHEAD: But this is not a question of spending. The actuary in the Command Paper argued that this may result in reducing contributions at the end of a certain period, and he foreshadowed a reduction of contributions. Therefore that surplus would be wiped out by reducing contributions, and the money should be used now for the purpose we have indicated.

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: I have only to repeat what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already intimated. I am prepared to accept, in principle, the extension of the period not to the limit of 12 months but to the lesser period indicated in an Amendment to the Schedule which stands in my name—in Schedule 4, page 18, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
Sect. 5…For the words 'six weeks' there shall be substituted the words 'ten weeks.'
I understand the best way of procedure will be to accept this Clause in principle and then an Amendment will be moved, I understand, by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) substituting the words "ten weeks" for the words "twelve months" in the Clause. In that ease, I am prepared to accept the Clause.

Mr. HAYDAY: I should like to be clear as to our position. If the Amendment be accepted in principle and the period of 10 weeks then inserted, will that preclude us from moving a manuscript Amendment altering the 10 weeks and introducing some other period?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think we are being treated just a little unfairly in this matter. The Amendment of the Minister to which he has referred will be the very last which can arise from Schedule 4 to-morrow. Hon. Members opposite have shown a much greater desire to speak since the guillotine was imposed, and we have no guarantee that we can even raise the question to-morrow. We are placed in a difficult position. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Clause it is-almost impossible for us in principle to vote against it.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I ask you, Captain FitzRoy, whether I am not correct in saying that it would be quite in order for any hon. Member opposite to speak against the Amendment to insert "ten weeks" instead of "twelve months," which Amendment will follow immediately after the Second Reading of the proposed New Clause. I am glad the non. Member has realised that the absence of speeches from this side of the House at an earlier stage was due more to the prolixity of hon. Members opposite than to any dislike on the part of hon. Members on this side to express their views.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be better first to dispose of the question "That the Clause be read a Second time." When the Amendment which has been indicated is moved to the Clause the question will then arise whether the specific period named should stand part of the Clause, and it will be open to hon. Members to suggest a different period or to move an Amendment proposing a different period.

Clause read a second time.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 4, to leave out the words "twelve months" and to insert instead thereof the words "ten weeks."

Mr. GREENWOOD: This shows the difficulty in which we are placed. We want the period of twelve months and the Amendment as moved at this stage by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) places us in a difficulty.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first thing we must do is to get out the words

"twelve months." Then I can put the "Question" That the words 'ten weeks' be there inserted" and hon. Members can then put forward their proposal for a different period.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has taken a most extraordinary course in accepting a Clause in principle which he really does not mean to accept in fact, and it looks as if he has put us in the position of having to vote against our own views.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I did it because I understood that that course was more for the convenience of the Committee than any other course that could be taken. As far as I am aware, the course was suggested because of certain technical questions of procedure, that is to say that if this Clause were not accepted in principle, and then an Amendment was moved, it would have to be voted against by those Members of the Committee who did not agree with that Amendment. I am told that if we voted against this Clause now, and it were defeated, the question of any extension of the continuity rule could not be taken again in the Committee stage.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Clause has passed its Second Reading, and if hon. Members on my left wish to retain the words "twelve months," they must vote for them standing part of the Clause. If those words are left out, then they can move an Amendment, if they wish, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert the word "twelve."

Question put, "That the words 'twelve months' stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 221.

Division No. 434.]
AYES.
[8.18 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, O. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Day, Colonel Harry
Groves, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dennison, R.
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, Walter
Dunnico, H.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edge, Sir William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnes, A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hardie, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Harris, Percy A.


Bondfield, Margaret
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bromfield, William
Fenby, T. D.
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Forrest, W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Buchanan, G.
Gardner, J. P.
Hirst, G. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Clowes, S.
Gillett, George M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Cluse, W. S.
Gosling, Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).


Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Connolly, M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
John, William (Rhondda, west)


Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Vlant, S. P.


Kennedy, T.
Rose, Frank H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lansbury, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lawrence, Susan
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lindley, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, J. c.


Livingstone, A. M.
Sitch, Charles H.
Westwood, J.


Lowth, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberaven)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


March S.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Montague, Frederick
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, E. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Oliver, George Harold
Sullivan, J.
Windsor, Walter


Owen, Major G.
Sutton, J. E.
Wright, W.


Palin, John Henry
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Paling, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.


Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dlxey, A. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Albery, Irving James
Drewe, C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ellis, R. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Apsley, Lord
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Long, Major Eric


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Looker, Herbert William


Balniel, Lord
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fermoy, Lord
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bennett, A. J.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Berry, Sir George
Fraser, Captain Ian
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Betterton, Henry B.
Frece, Sir Walter de
McLean, Major A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goff, Sir Park
Malone, Major P. B.


Briggs, J. Harold
Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Briscoe, Richard George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Meller, R. J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Buchan, John
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Burman, J. B.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore Sir Newton J.


Campbell, E. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harland, A.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nuttall, Ellis


Christie, J. A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Oakley, T.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hawke, John Anthony
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Clayton, G. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Pilcher, G.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colman, N. C. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hills, Major John Waller
Preston, William


Cooper, A. Duff
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
price, Major C. W. M.


Cope, Major William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Radford, E. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Raine, Sir Walter


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Remer, J. R.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remnant, Sir James


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)




Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Rye, F. G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Storry-Deans, R.
Wells, S. R.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Savery, S. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Templeton, W. P.
Withers, John James


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Womersley, W. J.


Shepperson. E. W.
Tinne, J. A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Skelton, A. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Waddington, R.



Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

Question proposed, "That the words 'ten weeks' be there inserted."

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
There should be no difficulty about this. We still believe that the twelve months was quite a legitimate and right proposal to make. We can quite appreciate, also, the fact that the Government give considerable weight to decisions within their own party, and as it was a unanimous decision of the Cardiff Conference of the party that the period should be twelve weeks, we feel that the Minister should in this case be able to give the further two weeks. While the extension will not be a big one, it may just make a difference in the marginal cases. It will still leave it possible for four weeks of waiting time to be given within 12 months, and if you eliminate it I would ask you now to agree that twelve should take the place of ten seeing that twelve is the decision of the right hon. Gentleman's own party. It would not be at all satisfactory to us, but we are prepared to get the best we possibly cam in the circumstances. The amount involved should not weigh very heavily in the decision. It could not mean more than another £100,000 per annum, and if that amount will bring those who need relief a greater equality in treatment amongst the general body of insured persons, I feel the right hon. Gentleman ought quite willingly to accept it. There was a time when the Minister got up, and because of his sudden acceptance of something I was moving I did not quite appreciate what impulse it was that prompted him. I would like him to say now, "I accept the Amendment." I am certain that the
concession, small as it is, will be appreciated, and quite a number of the real, genuine men who serve for three or four weeks' waiting time in a year will be thankful for the little difference it will make to them.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope that by rising now I shall not deprive the hon. Member of the opportunity of appreciating the force of the negative I am going to give. I appreciate what he has said very much indeed. I appreciate his reference to the Cardiff Conference, and I hope he will pay equal deference to it in the remainder of the views he expresses on this subject.

Mr. HAYDAY: It depends whether it be acceptable or not.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member must not pick and choose in that way.

Mr. HAYDAY: What are you doing with the Blanesburgh Report?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is picking and choosing now. It was he who complained about my attitude in making one exception to the Blanesburgh Report. He is confirming me in the fact that I should make one exception, and he wants to make more. The difference between 10 and 13 weeks is the difference between £250,000 to £300,000 on the one hand, and £500,000 to £600,000, which three months will cost, on the other. It depends a little on the degree of unemployment on which you calculate, but according to the degree of unemployment it will cost between £500,000 and £600,000.

Mr. HAYDAY: I take it the right hon. Gentleman is now mentioning £500,000' to be the charge for 13 weeks. Our pro-
posal is 12 weeks, and the difference between 10 and 12 cannot be represented by much more than £100,000.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sorry if I made a slip. It would not be as much as £500,000 or £600,000, but it would be a little less than the difference between £250,000 to £300,000 which the 10 weeks would cost, and £500,000 to £600,000, which is the cost of 13 weeks. Since the Debate began, I have already made a concession, or rather a new proposal of my own, to increase the rates of benefit for those who are in the age class of 18 to 21, and I am sure That if I went back to the Cardiff Conference they would realise that these two concessions together would be ample to justify my refraining from going beyond 10 weeks at the present moment. That, I think, would commend itself also to every reasonable person. Therefore, I fear that I cannot go to the 12 weeks as suggested, but I am prepared to take the Amendment of 10 weeks. Ten weeks, I think, will meet the two main needs for which an extension is needed.
The period of 10 weeks carries a man over the customary holidays. Similarly, with regard to agriculture, when one considers the desirability of those who are unable to get employment in insured trades being able to feel themselves free to take up agricultural work for a short time, then the extension to 10 weeks means that, as far as the hay harvest and corn harvest are concerned, a person may take agricultural work without having to undergo a second waiting period.

Mr. HAYDAY: May I put one further point for explanation? The Minister mentioned the customary holidays. It is well known that, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, if it is customary to have a week's holiday, an employed person cannot sign on for that week. Further, a customary holiday or annual Holiday period does not enter into the continuity rule from, our point of view.

Mr. T. SHAW: I think the Minister is very harsh on this occasion, and, even at the risk of being considered unreasonable, I am going to try to argue that it is perfectly reasonable to ask that at least 12 weeks should be given before a person has to serve a second waiting
period. If it were only the waiting period it would not be important; what is important is that it is a waiting period without pay. If instead of insisting that a man should be out of work for a week before he is paid, you paid him from the first day, I could understand the attitude of the Minister, but his attitude is that a man must not only play a week, but also must do without a week's pay, if he has been employed for 10 weeks. Take the ordinary case that occurs in the Lancashire textile trade. Men are working all the year round on short time. They never know what it is to have a full week's wages, and yet, if a man has received unemployment pay, say at Whitsuntide, and he works until the holiday in late August, and then enters a stretch of unemployment, he has to play a week for nothing because he has had a matter of more than 10 weeks' partial employment. In the American section of the cotton trade full employment is to all intents and purposes unknown. In the county of Lancashire this rule will work very harshly. Every year which passes makes the problem of the unemployed man worse. He is worse off now than he was in 1924, because he has had another three years of unemployment.
Take the big trade of which I have just spoken, the cotton trade. Before the War it was the largest exporting trade in this country. It is a great mistake to suppose that the coal or the iron and steel industry was the biggest exporting industry. The cotton industry was the biggest exporter, and the workers in that industry in Lancashire and the adjoining counties have been suffering with exceptional severity since 1921. They suffered even during the War, because they could not get their raw material through shipping being required for what were regarded as more urgent necessities. Why should a person who has played a week without pay he asked to suffer another week's unemployment without pay? From the point of view of pure reason, can anyone defend a proposition that, because a person has worked either for full wages or partial wages for 10 weeks without a spell of unemployment, that he should again play a week for nothing? Is there any defence for it on grounds of reason or of humanity? Is there any reason at all for it, except that the concession asked for might cost the Unemployment Fund
another £100,000 or £150,000? I think that is the only reason which can be urged against it. There can be no reason against it in equity, and less reason in humanity, and whatever the Tory congress decided—and they did decide on 12 weeks—I think on the merits of the case we are fairly entitled to ask for at least 12 weeks before a person is asked to play another week without any benefits at all. I base my argument on the absolute right to this concession of an unemployed workman or workwoman, unemployed through no fault of his or her own, unemployed through causes over which he or she had no control—genuine workers of the type which I have mentioned, the best workers in the world at their trade. The sufferings of these people will be at least a little ameliorated if, in the cases I have mentioned, they are able to draw benefits when they are unemployed, and because theirs is a reasonable case I shall certainly vote for the 12 weeks.

Mr. SHORT: I have already made some reference to the question of the extension of the continuity rule, but I am amazed at the reply of the Minister. In the first place, he tried to defend the 10 weeks on the ground of covering some holiday period. As an hon. Member who sits below me has pointed out, insured contributors are not entitled to sign during such a period if it is a recognised holiday. Then the Minister went on to say that 10 weeks was decided on in order to meet the case of agricultural workers. I have no objection to that, for anything we can do for agricultural workers will be most welcome, but it made me begin to wonder whether the people I represent are going to get any benefit out of this, whether the industrial workers in our necessitous areas are to get any advantage out of this 10 weeks. I really think the Minister made a case for the extension of the period from 10 to 12 weeks. He seemed to have some doubts as to the cost. He talked about its costing another £100,000 or another £150,000 as though talking of millions—we here are all accustomed to think in millions, and not in hundreds of thousands—but he has no ground for any fears. What did the Government Actuary say? The Government Actuary dealt at some length with the waiting period and the continuity
rule, and on page 211 of the evidence of the Blanesburgh Committee he expressed no fears and no doubts as to the cost of extending this period to three months— not to 12 weeks, for I take it that three months is 13 weeks. He said:
I have not estimated the effect, but I think it would make very little difference to the finance of the scheme if the period were made at any rate three months.
This is the view of the Government Actuary, who, I have no doubt, is paid some thousands a year to advise the Government out of his wealth of statistical knowledge and experience. Surely the Minister ought to be influenced by the advice of the Government's own Actuary, apart from the fact that the Conservative Conference, rank and file, asked for this change. They reduced their demands to the lowest possible limit, and said, "All we want is half a million," but the right hon. Gentleman turns them down, and I am afraid we must look for nothing in the way of concessions on this matter.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would make a request to the Minister further to consider this extension. Everyone who has had experience of the working of unemployment insurance knows that very many people regard it as a great grievance that there should be this period when they are unemployed and obtain no benefit. The Minister was not very convincing in his reply to the Mover of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment on the subject of the cost, and I would like him to give us some reason for his unwillingness to accept the statement of the Actuary. The Actuary thinks it would cost us very little extra. It is possible that hon. Members, who themselves would not be inconvenienced if they were unemployed for years, do not realise the intensity of feeling there is on this point, but the budget in a working-class home is on such a narrow basis that this waiting period does constitute a very material handicap, and to give two weeks more, making the period 12 weeks, would not be a very great concession for the Minister to make. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give us some reason for departing from the estimate of the Actuary, I hope he will be able to see his way to promise reconsideration of this point. The Minister might undertake that between now and
the Report stage he will consider the possibility of making the Clause 12 weeks, although I should prefer 13 weeks, because a quarter of a year would give a certain amount of symmetry to the Clause. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment deals with a great grievance.

Mr. J. BAKER: I do not follow the one argument which has been used by the Minister of Labour to the effect that what he has proposed is going to relieve the unemployed so far as holidays and the continuity proposals are concerned. In regard to established holidays, they are qualified by a statement in regard to a 12 days' rule. I think from what I have stated that the Minister will at once see that his one argument in reference to this proposal does not hold good, and if that argument is not sound then the right hon. Gentleman should at once withdraw

from his position and accept our Amendment. The 12 days' rule was established for intermittent work when the holidays fell into that period. If a man is out of work for 12 days' longer than the normal customary holiday period, it is assumed that he has been dismissed, and if he can prove that he has been out of work by signing the book for 12 days, he can be paid for the whole period. I think that argument ought to convince the Minister of Labour that his one solitary argument does not hold water, and the wisest course for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt is to accept our Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 124.

Division No. 435.]
AYES.
[8.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Henderson, Capt. H. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Albery, Irving James
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Alexander, sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hills, Major John Waller


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Atholl, Duchess of
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dixey, A. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliott, Major Walter E.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bennett, A. J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurd, Percy A.


Berry, Sir George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iliffe Sir Edward M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Jephcott, A. R.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Briggs, J. Harold
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
King Commodore Henry Douglas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, J. Q.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Frece Sir Walter de
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb"y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Little Dr. E. Graham


Buchan, John
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loder, J. de V.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Long Major Eric


Burman, J. B.
Gates, Percy
Looker, Herbert William


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Goff, Sir Park
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Gower Sir Robert
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grace, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grotrian, H. Brent
McLean, Major A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macquisten, F. A.


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Clayton, G. C.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hammersley, S. S.
Malone, Major P. B.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harland, A.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Colman, N. C. D.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Meller, R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cope, Major William
Harvey, Majors. S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hawke, John Anthony
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Nelson, Sir Frank
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)
Templeton, W. P.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Rye, F. G.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Nuttall, Ellis
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tinne, J. A.


Oakley, T.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Waddington, R.


O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Penny, Frederick George
Savery, S. S.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Pilcher, G.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Preston, William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Price, Major C W. M.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Radford, E. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Raine, Sir Walter
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Withers, John James


Ramsden, E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Womersley, W. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Reid, D.D.(County Down)
Storry-Deans, R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Remer, J. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Remnant, Sir James
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Captain Margesson and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Stephen, Campbell


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Vlant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Livingstone, A. M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda))


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)>


Forrest, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gardner, J. P.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John
Hayes.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Sexton, James



Question, "That the words 'ten weeks' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment to equalize contributions of employers and of insured persons.)

As from the commencement of this Act the weekly contributions enacted in the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insur-
as payable by any employer in respect of any person employed by that employer and insured under the said Act shall be reduced in manner following, in order that the weekly contribution of the employer and the employed person shall be of like amount, namely, in respect of ordinary rates enacted in the said Schedule, the weekly contribution payable by the employer of an employed and insured person being a man shall be reduced from eight pence to seven pence, and the weekly contribution payable by the employer of an employed and insured person being a woman shall be reduced from seven pence to sixpence, and in respect of the rates of contribution enacted in the said Schedule in the case of persons under eighteen, the weekly contribution payable by the employer of an employed and insured person being a boy shall be reduced from four pence to three pence halfpenny, and the weekly contribution payable by the employer of an employed and insured person being a girl shall be reduced from three pence halfpenny to three pence.—[Mr. Harmsworth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move, "" That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Blanesburgh Report, on this question of the employers' contribution, states:
No suggestion has been received from or on behalf, of employers that they should be relieved of a share of the contribution.
My object in moving this Clause is not that the contribution of the employer should be necessarily reduced, but in order to equalise the employers' contribution with that of the employed. I had hoped to be able to move an Amendment equalising the contributions all round, but that, unfortunately, is out of order, as is also another Amendment to a like effect which was put down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Astor). This is the nearest proposal that it is possible now to put forward for the equalisation of contributions. In the Economy (Miscellaneous Frovisions) Act it is laid down that the State shall only pay three-sevenths of the total contributions, and we cannot, therefore, move any Amendment to equalise all the contributions, because that would require an extra amount from the Treasury; but this proposed new Clause would equalise two of the contributions.
9.0 p.m.
I do not know, Captain FitzBoy, how far you will allow me to talk on the equalisation of contributions, but I desire that this proposed new Clause should be
looked at from that point of view. I think it is an essential proposal of the Blanesburgh Report that the contributions of the employer, the employed, and the State should be made equal. One of the hardest and worst burdens upon the industries in the depressed areas, apart from rates, is that of the direct contributions which they have to pay towards these services. They have to pay those contributions whether they make a profit or not, and I feel certain that hon. Members in every quarter of the Committee will agree that, in the case of these depressed areas, the two burdens which we all want to relieve as far as possible are the rates and the direct contributions towards these services. This reduction of Id. in the employer's contribution would not, of course, make a great difference in relieving industry, but it would be a first step, and I hope the Minister, when he replies, will give some indication as to whether, when the Fund is solvent, or at any rate nearer solvency than it is at the present moment, we may hope that, firstly, the employer's contribution may be reduced, and that, secondly, we may look for a fulfilment of the Blanesburgh Report and an equalisation of the contributions. The shifting of the burden from the Exchequer on to the employer is no real economy. The money has to be collected, and, if it is collected from, the employer, it is an even more direct burden than it can be upon the State. I should be called to order if I entered too fully into that matter, and I do not want to go back over the arguments that have ranged from one subject to the other in this House. I want merely to ask the Minister, when he replies, to tell me whether, when the Fund approaches nearer to solvency, when its indebtedness is reduced by, say, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and he sees in the next year, or in the next three years, a prospect of its becoming solvent— [Interruption]. I admit that no prophecy can be made in that direction. If things go badly, this matter will not enter into the problem at all, but, if they go well, will the Minister reduce the contributions to equal amounts? They were equal in the original Unemployment Insurance Bill, and they would never have been altered had it not been that the state of affairs was abnormal. It may be still abnormal, but I suggest to the Minister that, when it nears normality again,
the contributions should once more be made equal. I move this Clause, not in the hope that the Minister will accept it, because I have no doubt that the state of the Fund will not allow of its acceptance, but in order that we may have an answer from him as to his future course of policy.

Mr. J. JONES: I feel that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) has put down this Clause in order that he may be able to say his piece. He tells us that he does not really mean it, but is only asking whether, within three years from now, there may be some hope that he will get a satisfactory answer to his question. Some of us on these benches do not believe in the Unemployment Insurance Bill at all; we have always stood for the principle of the State recognising its responsibilities to its citizens. The unemployed workman is unemployed almost entirely through circumstances over which he has no control. The principle of unemployment insurance was established as a compromise between the contending ideas on the subject. It was accepted in a good spirit and feeling at a time when circumstances were more favourable than they are to-day, and the principle was laid down of equal contributions all round. I hold peculiar views, different, perhaps, from those of some of my friends. I hold that, whoever pays, the worker pays the lot. The parson prays for all; the soldier fights for all; the lawyer pleads for all; but the worker pays for all.
In this particular case it is only a shifting of the burden—a little bit of sugar for the bird. Supposing that the employer pays more, however much more he pays goes on to the cost of the goods he has to sell. So far as the State is concerned, who finds the money for the State? The people who produce the wealth of the State. Therefore, in the final analysis, the men who produce the wealth of the country have to foot the bill, however much you may jiggery-pokery about with the game, however much the Chancellor of the Exchequer may bring up his figures to prove that everything in the garden is lovely, or unlovely. The hon. Member who has moved this Clause is asking for a promise for the future. He lives on futurity. He
does not want this Clause to be pressed if he can get a satisfactory answer to his question: is it to be next year, some day, ever? He asks, "Can I get an assurance from the Minister that, when he has money enough to spare, he will give me some of it, because I am speaking for the employers? That is really what he says he is doing. There cannot be any equality between the employer and the workman. In the great majority of cases the workman is certain to be out of work at some period of his working life. The employer is not sure to be out of work. He may be out of work, but he will never be out of benefit. There is no waiting time for him except when he sends his notice in to his bankers or his brokers to deliver the goods.
To talk about equality between the workman and the employer is to talk nonsense. There is no such equality and there cannot be under existing circum stances. There is no equality of bargaining power between them. If there were an Insurance Bill here for the purpose of finding dividends for employers, the benches opposite would be unanimous in giving them all the advantages that could be given to see that their dividends were guaranteed all the year round every year from 1st January to 31st December. It is only when the workmen's interests are being considered that we have these nice questions of relations in the matter of the Insurance Fund. We pay insurance to protect the State against the possibility of invasion. No one objects to paying a share of that, if we do not pay our share we are supposed to be un patriotic, enemies of our country, friends of every country but our own. Poverty is a bigger enemy than Germany ever was. What are we going to do to keep this fund solvent? It does not matter how insolvent you make the victims of it. The fund itself must be kept right, and in order to keep it right we must cut off here and cut off there. There was a very sinister argument advanced by the Minister in response to another Amendment. He talked about the agricultural workers having some relationship to the Bill. As a matter of fact he knows it is not the agricultural workers because they do not come under the Insurance Act at all. What he really means is that at harvest time when there are not sufficient ordinary agricultural workers—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not come under this New Clause at all.

Mr. JONES: I quite appreciate your ruling, Sir, but I was only pointing out as an illustration that when we ask for an extension of the Clauses of the Bill to protect the ordinary working man we cannot have it. It is turned down. But when it comes to suit some sectional interest which has nothing to do with the Bill we are asked to extend it to enable it to carry on. The agricultural industry does not come under the Bill, but when it is busy the town worker can be drafted in to supply the surplus labour that may be necessary for the time being. They are going to be protected, but the ordinary workman gets no protection whatever. The previous rules that entitled him to benefit are going to be cut down, and instead of getting the benefit he ought to get out of the Bill they are being gradually pilfered from him. On those grounds we object to this sort of equality. The only men who are going to be punished by the proposition of the Government are not the employers but the workmen, who in the main will have to foot the Bill and carry all the consequences of unemployment to themselves and their family.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not quite certain from what the last Member who addressed the Committee said⁁

Mr. JONES: I am not the last Member, I am an hon. Member.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The last hon. Member who addressed the Committee, whether he supports the Amendment or not. It is true, as the Mover anticipated, that it is not possible for me to accept it at present. It is true that under the old original scheme of the Insurance Act the employer and the workman paid equal contributions. That was the fundamental idea, and variations only occurred to save fractional contributions. If it were possible to reduce the employers' contribution by a penny, as was contemplated, I should be very glad, but at present it is not possible to do it. I think the Mover of the New Clause realised that that would be my attitude, and indeed no other attitude could conceivably be maintained by anyone who is responsible. Hon. Members may perhaps be interested to know how the finance of the Fund would
run. On an unemployment figure of about 1,100,000 it would mean that at present we should be making a deficit on the scheme of about £3,250,000 a year. If, however, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect, that deficit would be increased to about £5,250,000 a year. In other words, far from paying off debt, the debt would be increased to the extent of that figure. As unemployment decreased the conditions would become more favourable. With an average unemployment figure of 1,000,000, that is to say, about 9 per cent. of unemployment, under the scheme of the Bill income and expenditure will balance, but under the hon. Member's proposal there would still be a deficit of £2,000,000 a year, and that without taking into account the payment of interest on the existing debt. If unemployment, judged by the live register, decreases to about 900,000— that is pretty nearly equivalent to 8 per cent. of unemployment— under the scheme of the Bill there will be a surplus of about £3,000,000 a year, and on the hon. Member's proposal there would be an apparent surplus of £1,000,000, but if one takes into account interest on the debt, it would then only just be paying its way.
Those are the broad features of the financial situation at present. They are bound to vary according to different conditions of unemployment, that is to say, if there is a greater number on short time and a lesser number who are fully unemployed, the conditions are rather more favourable because not so much benefit is paid. Similarly, variations occur according to the differing proportion between men and women, but the broad figures are those I have taken. Under the scheme of the Bill there is a deficit of about £3,000,000 with a live register of 1,100,000, a balance with a live register of 1,000,000, and a surplus of about £3,000,000 with a live register of 900,000. That being so, it clearly would not be prudent of me to accept a reduction of what has sometimes been known as the employers' penny to bring the employer's and the workman's contribution to parity. If and when it is practicable I should be very glad indeed to do so. I do not share the views of the hon. Member who has just spoken in thinking a burden of this kind means nothing to industry. I think it means a great deal. The extra burden cannot be put on the
price, and I realise that quite well. If and when the improvement continues, as I hope it will and as personally I expect it will, unless anything unforeseen occurs, when the debt is reduced to about £7,500,000 that penny will be taken oft. Until then, I cannot hold out any hope of so doing. What would be needed in order to take it off with the debt still at the higher figure would be to make sure that after the income had been reduced by the amount of that penny, we should still be able to go on paying oft debt at a sufficiently rapid rate. For that reason, I cannot hold out any particular date as one on which this first penny should be taken off. There is power to do so when the debt is reduced to £7,500,000, but at any stage before that, as I have said, the surplus under any scheme would have to be sufficient to make me feel that I could continue to reduce the debt after relinquishing the income represented by that penny. That is the state of the finances of the scheme at the present moment, and it is for that reason that I cannot offer to meet any party in the reduction of any contributions now. I only hope that the situation may improve so rapidly that I may be able to do it before a long interval has passed.

Mr. HAYDAY: I have listened to the most extraordinary speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think Members of the Committee must have been somewhat astonished at the new attitude he now takes up. The attitude that we have been taking up all along is that the direct charge on industry was harsh, and that the State should take over part of that burden. The right hon. Gentleman now says, "I agree. The charge on industry is great," and yet he is defending his Government in paying less than their one-third share. The fact that the State pays less than a one-third share makes it necessary that the employer should pay more—or the amount that they are paying now. If the State paid an equal share, the employer's payment might be taken off, and so could part of the workman's contribution. I do not think We should take it as coming wholly from the heart when the Minister says "I would like to do it; I know that this direct charge presses on industry," and at the same time justifies his own Government paying less than one-third of the contribu-
tion. But is it correct to state that the principle of equal contributions from employer and insured person was honoured originally? We now quote the Act of 1920 as being the principal Act. The Act of 1920 does not provide equal contributions from the insured person generally and the employer. In the case of men, yes, 4d.—4d. In the case of women—3½d. in respect of the insured person, and 3|d. in respect of the employer. In the case of young persons — girls l½d., and 2d. the employers, and youths 2d.—2d.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hoped I had made it quite clear—perhaps I did not— that it was equality, except in those cases where fractions of a penny were concerned.

Mr. HAYDAY: I cannot see a fraction of a penny, except that you call the fraction of a penny an equal half.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes.

Mr. HAYDAY: But that does not easily come in. It does not come in as an
indivisible fraction.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I only wish to make it clear; I do not want to be misunderstood. When it came to the case of women it was 3d. and 3½d. If it were equal, it would have been 3½d. each.

Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman moist not try to hit me in that way, because if it were equal it would have been 3½d. each. If the insured person was paying equally with the employer, it would have been 3½d. in this case.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I correct the hon. Member? To produce a total contribution from employer and employé of 6½d., if it was to be shared equally, they would equally pay 3½d.

Mr. HAYDAY: Still, it was never worked out at that. It was done in order to show that the employer had a greater responsibility, because at that stage the State only paid 2d. in the case of men. It did not mind going into some of these little intricacies, because the payment of the State came to about one-fifth of the total and because the State only paid one-fifth it called for an extra contribution from the employers. My only point is, that it is not true to say that the principle until recently has been one of equal contribution from employers and insured persons. It is not true, in
a general sense, because from 1920 there has been a difference, and that difference will remain until such time as the State recognises its full share of responsibility, and undertakes one-third of the contribution, which is the only justifiable attitude as long as you have a three-party system in an insurance system. The State creates the cost, the States makes the Regulations, the State lays down all the circumstances and controls the whole of the funds, and, surely, it is not asking too much that if the State wants to equalise the burden and reduce the employers' contribution, with which proposal I agree, it must make up the difference. It must not take it from the employer and reserve its present position that if it took it from the employer it would mean a diminution of benefits to the insured person.
I do not suppose that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) would wish that at all in his Clause. I agree, that as long as you have payments at all, and we cannot get a non-contributory scheme, and we have a scheme in which the employers, workmen, and the general taxpayers have to contribute, we must have a uniform contribution. If there are three parties let each pay a one-third share. I only rise to call attention to the fact that the employers have always, since 1920, paid more than the insured person. This is not a new incidence which has been introduced as the Measure has developed. The principle may have been enlarged, but it has only been enlarged in so far as the State has contracted or restricted its own obligations. It must not be thought that the insured person is not paying sufficient if the employer is paying too much, but that the State is calling upon the employer to pay a share that ought to come out of general taxation rather than out of direct taxation upon industry.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of employers' contributions in respect of exempt persons.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, no employer shall be required to make any contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in respect of any person employed by him who is a person exempted tinder the said Acts from payment of con-
tributions to the said Fund.—[Mr. Harmsworth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment is not one that will affect a great number of people. It has to do with exempted persons, and I feel sure that the Minister will agree that, whether the exempted persons are in the scheme or outside the scheme, it will not make a great deal of difference to the success of the scheme financially. In answer to a question which I put to him, he replied that there were 31,456 exempted persons, and that their employers contributed approximately £50,000 in 1926–27. If this scheme were managed by an ordinary insurance company, for in stance, there would not be payments by the employers or the State for people exempted from that scheme. I under stand that the argument in favour of these payments for exempted persons is that the employers might be tempted to employ exempted persons so that they would not have to pay the contributions. There are, however, so few of these exempted persons that it could not possibly make any difference in that respect. If an employer set out to look for exempted persons to employ, he could not find enough to make any difference to him.
I suggest, therefore, that the Minister might accept this Clause because, as a matter of principle, it seems ridiculous that either the employers or the State should be asked to contribute to a Fund in respect of people who are exempted from the Fund. Whether the amount of relief given to industry or to the Exchequer would make much difference does not matter. It is as a point of principle that I am raising it. Was it intended when the scheme was started that the State and the employers should pay money for people who are getting nothing out of it? They are simply being taxed to pay money to a Fund from which no one is to benefit. It would make a great deal of difference to the scheme if the Minister were to remove this anomaly and put the matter on a proper footing.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am so hardhearted, as hon. Members opposite know, that I am afraid I must say "no"
to the hon. Member. As he says, it is more a question of principle than of the difference it would make to the Fund. But it is as a question of principle that contributions have always been paid by employers in respect of exempted persons. This employment ex hypothesi is an insurable employment. It is an employment in respect of which normally the employer would pay an employer's contribution. The employer is really benefiting if the person in respect of whom he pays a contribution is not likely to come upon the Fund if he should be out of work. That is one of the reasons why, looked at from that point of view, an employer does not suffer hardship nor does the Exchequer in respect of the contribution which it pays as the employer pays his. For that reason there is no justification in principle for this Clause. On the other hand, there is also a good deal of force in the argument that we ought not to put a person who can say he is an exempted person at an advantage as compared with a non-exempted person. In so far as cost is a matter of moment to employers, to that extent there would naturally be a tendency not to employ the person who comes under the scheme when it is possible to employ someone who is exempted. The scales should be held equally between the two. For that reason, it is right that employers should pay contributions for exempted persons. I do not think they suffer hardship. It is an insurable employment. They pay for the person who works for them in an insurable employment. If that person is not likely to be a burden on the Unemployment Fund then they, like others, are advantaged thereby.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am sorry the Minister is not going to give this matter further consideration, because it is one of those little annoying things, small in themselves, about which many employers of labour are complaining. Several people have approached me on this matter, and they regard it as paying for something for which no benefit is going to be derived by anybody except the Fund itself. The type of person that is usually exempted is one in a responsible position, such as a foreman earning over a certain amount per year. Employers argue that it has been their custom in the past when trade has been slack to keep those men in employment and, as they are
prepared to continue to do so, they cannot understand why they should have to pay this contribution when the man himself is exempt from so doing, and as he receives no benefit, they have to contribute to his maintenance if trade be slack. There is more in the complaint than the Minister realises. Perhaps, because it is a small number of people who are affected, the volume of protests against it is not so loud as it should be, but I can assure him that many people regard it as an annoyance and would welcome this Amendment.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I wish to join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to give this more consideration. I agree that, from the point of view of finance and of the employer, it is not a matter of great importance, but it is one of those little irritations which tend to impair the smooth working of an admirable scheme. On that ground I hope the Minister may be induced to give it a little more consideration before the Report stage.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I only wish to say that, if hon. Members opposite will challenge a Division on this, we shall be glad to support the Government.

Mr. GARDNER: I am glad to learn that the Minister, who is so hard-hearted towards us on this Bill, is not going to accept this Clause. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said that some employers keep men from going on the rates—

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I did not say that. I said they kept these men going when trade was slack, and have done it for many years past. They are valued servants and, though they have to pay contributions for them, they keep them, going.

Mr. GARDNER: The whole principle of the exemption is that the man concerned is so well-off that he need not come on the fund or on the rates. The hon. Member who moved the Motion laid it down that the contributions are very small, and said that he could not conceive employers being tempted to employ persons who were exempted. If he will read the daily newspapers, he will see numbers of prosecutions which show that it is very difficult to get some of them to pay contributions at all. I am certain that if this privilege were granted that the time would not be very far off
when some employers would advertise for men specially exempted in order to carry on their industry.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Persons in certain excepted employments to be credited with thirty contributions on becoming insured contributors.)

Where a person employed in any one of the excepted employments mentioned in paragraph (d) in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act ceases such employment and becomes an insured contributor, he shall thereupon be entitled to have thirty contributions placed to his credit, and if at any time within a period of two years of becoming an insured contributor he makes a claim to benefit he shall be regarded as having fulfilled the first statutory condition for the receipt of benefit."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I must apologise to the Committee that owing to an error, either of typing or of printing, the new Clause as it appears on the Paper relates to paragraph (a) instead of paragraph (d). I hope that will not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. Part II of the First Schedule of the Act of 1920, paragraph (d), deals with employment under public authorities and public utility companies, whereas paragraph (a) is confined to agriculture. The reason why I raise this point is that a large number of workpeople in this country normally fall in certain specified insurable employments, but it depends upon the kind of employer they get whether in fact they are insured persons or not. Thus, an electrician who works for a private employer other than a public utility company and who is not a municipal servant, would be an insured person under the Act. If, however, he were employed by a municipal authority or a railway company or a public utility company he would fall within the category of excepted persons laid down in the First Schedule of the principal Act.
This raises a point of substantial importance to workpeople who are in insurable employment where their employers may be a public utility company or some other body excepted from the operations of the Act and who by a mere accident might subsequently be employed by a pri-
vate employer. One might take the cases of members of a large number of trade unions. I do not know how many trade unions have members who are employed by local or other public authorities or a railway company or public utility companies, but there must be a very considerable number. In most cases the big majority of the members of these trade unions are employed by private employers. I will take the case of a youth who becomes an electrical worker and is employed by a local authority. His father may be employed by a private employer. The father is an insured person, but the son at the age of 16, having reached insurable age, if he is employed by a public electricity authority or by a public utility electricity authority, would not be an insurable person. It might well be that in the course of time such a youth might find it to his economic advantage to leave the service of the public authority or the public utility company and to enter private employment. In doing so, although the whole of his working life has been in an insurable occupation he has no insurance rights and he has to begin to build up his 30 stamps from the beginning.
That raises a question of some importance to a very large number of workers and a considerable number of trade unionists. Our view is, and that is the purpose of the new Clause, that when a person who would normally have been an insured person leaves an excepted employment for employment which is insurable, he should be credited—I regret that the forms of the House do not permit us to say how he should be credited—with 30 stamps, which means that that man henceforward will be able should he come out of work to take advantage of the unemployment insurance scheme. That seems a very reasonable proposal. In the case of health insurance and under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, certain employers may be exempt from their payments for contributions under those schemes, because they are under contract really to provide at least an equivalent benefit. Here by the nature of things the equivalent benefit for the insured person means that he is not going to be out of work. Broadly speaking, in the case of public authorities that is true, and during the whole of that time the public authority has to provide nothing; it has not to put anything into a fund to provide health bene-
fits for its workers, and it has not to put anything into a fund to provide superannuation for its workers. It does nothing. It seems therefore reasonable that in the case of employing authorities of that kind when an employé who is engaged in what is normally insurable employment leaves their employment and enters insurable employment, he should be given by the employing authority 30 stamps, which will bring him within the advantages of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The man may have been employed by them for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years and they may never have had to pay a penny in respect of unemployment insurance. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the worker in these conditions ought to 'be provided by the employing authority when leaving their service with a sufficient number of stamps to enable him, should the occasion arise, to qualify for benefit.
This may not have been in the past a point which would affect a very considerable number of people, but I think that to-day, with the interchangeability that there is, it is reasonable that there should be some provision made for people who leave employment under public authorities and public utility companies and similar authorities for their coming immediately within the benefits of the unemployment insurance scheme. A very large number of the employés of local authorities are appointed as men. It is, on the whole, exceptional in the manual occupation of local authorities to employ boys. They take the men when they have gone through the whole of their training and apprenticeship. They may take them when they are in middle life, and during the whole of their years of insurable employment, those men have been contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and may have been a profit to the Fund; but once they go out of it they cease to be able to take advantage of the benefits of the Fund. As far as their new employers are concerned, those employers are not called upon to pay any contributions. It has been said many times during these Debates that we have to consider the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the money that is available, and use it to the best advantage. I do not imagine that a very large number of cases in any year would profit by this new Clause if it were adopted either in
this or some other form, and when the Fund comes- into normal times, to which the Minister looks forward with great optimism, it will be able to bear the strain that may be put upon it as the result of the operation of this Clause. I suggest to the Minister that we are asking for a simple thing and, on the whole, a just thing. I hope, seeing that we have given the right hon. Gentleman our moral support on the last two new Clauses, that he might be prepared to give us his active support in the new Clause which I now move.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is rather remarkable how circumstances alter cases. On the last new Clause which we considered the hon. Member was one of those who agreed that it was a question of principle; the fact that only a small number of exempted persons were affected was not the* question. It was the principle which was at stake and, therefore, he was going to support the Government on principle. I did not ask for his support, he volunteered it, and on those grounds; and now I am told that I am to consider this proposal on the ground that only a small number of persons will profit by it, not on any question of principle; merely because it is a matter of small cost to the Fund.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My appeal was not primarily on the ground of cost. That was merely to reassure the right hon. Gentleman. My appeal was on the ground of moral principle.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That makes the case even more extraordinary. Let me put the principle involved quite briefly. The principle is that a man should not pay premiums while he is employed in one of these occupations or trades, but is to be able to get benefit when he is unemployed.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. He is in an insurable occupation, but by the accident of having an employer who is able to claim exemption he may be deprived of benefits if he changes his employment.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Let us look at it again; my point still holds perfectly good. The man is in what is in all human probability a permanent job. If it is not a permanent job it
would not be excepted employment. Let me warn hon. Members opposite. If they say that these are not permanent employments, I expect them to move that railways, and the other employments to which the Amendment refers, should no longer be excepted from the operation of the Bill. If these are not permanent employments, then the reason for the exception of railways and local authorities from the operation of the Acts falls to the ground, and it is their duty to move that they should no longer remain in the excepted category. The reason why they are now in the excepted category is that it is agreed they are occupations in which there can be permanent employment. The man who is in what I hope is now agreed to be permanent employment is in quite a different position from the man in the Army, who is credited with 30 contributions when he leaves the Army. The man who goes into the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, goes in on what is admittedly a temporary basis. He goes in for a limited number of years, after which he will leave it for another occupation. The person who goes into one of the employments we are now considering goes into it as being a permanent employment. Everyone who has any practical knowledge of the matter knows that that is one of the inducements for him to enter, consequently, it is a wholly different state of affairs from the case of the Army, Navy or Air Force, in which 30 contributions are given when a person leaves the force.
Moreover, if a man leaves this kind of employment and is to be credited with 30 contributions he gets the best of both worlds. He does not pay contributions when he is in, and when he comes out again he is to have these contributions credited! to him—and he comes out of his own free will. It puts a premium on entering an uninsured trade as compared with an insured trade; it gives the persons in then in middle age an undue advantage as regards members who have been in insured trades all their lives. They have contributed more in proportion when they were young in order to be able in later years to have benefits which their adult contributions alone would not secure. And, lastly, I ask who is to pay these 30 contributions? The hon. Member has not inserted it in his new Clause. Perhaps he is afraid that if his real intention was manifest—
namely, that they should be paid by the Exchequer—that the Clause would he out of order.

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, let me say, sotto voce, that we thought the employers should pay it.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then I wonder why it is not inserted in the new-Clause. Perhaps the hon. Member has taken advice on the subject. At any rate, whoever pays it, it is quite unfair that the Exchequer should pay it, or that the employer should pay it, and ex hypothesi these are permanent employments and the conditions are such that they are most favourable to the men engaged in them, and to provide that the person who is in employment should pay a lump sum to the person who leaves it is putting the burden on the wrong shoulders. This is one of the simple cases where, if a person has a permanent job and chooses to leave it for his own reasons, which may be ample and sufficient, he must contemplate the perfect and natural consequence that if he goes into an insured trade he must acquire the same qualifications by contributions which every other person in an insured trade has acquired.

Mr. HAYDAY: The new Clause, I think, exposes a difficulty in our insurance provisions. The hon. Member who moved it is quite justified in his fears as to the number of people who are gradually finding their way into the general field of insured labour. Sooner or later we shall have to deal with the difficulty of allowing any contracting-out at all. This scheme would have been much sounder, more valuable and more generous, if none of these industries had been permitted to remain outside its scope. The call on the Fund is in the aggregate, and I suppose, much less than 3 per cent. of the total numbers employed in these trades covered by special schemes are unemployed. But the tendency recently, with the call for economy in local administration and the large amalgamations which have been taking place in industry, to reduce the number of persons employed by these amalgamations and by local authorities, and when these men and women find themselves on the general labour market they do find a difficulty, unless they go direct into employment, to fulfil the stamp qualification in the event of their job being only a temporary one.
I know what the hon. Member means and what I desire, but I see the difficulties in it. It is all very well for these people to say that 90 per cent. or so of the employés are guaranteed permanent employment, subject to obedience to rules and other things. I remember sitting as a member of a Departmental Committee in 1920, when we went into the whole question. I remember the actuary saying, "If you allow contracting out up to 5 per cent., you will have all your best lives going out and the residue will give you a higher percentage which must mean a higher contribution." That was stopped. The Government of the day saw the danger of it. I do not know how the difficulties can be met. It might best be met by some per capita charge. If these people have given an undertaking to the Department that there is permanent employment and dismissal only for disobedience to rules—

Mr. BETTERTON: Is it the hon. Member's view that the railwaymen should be included?

Mr. HAYDAY: My personal view is that all employment, agriculture, domestic service, and all contracted out trades, should be within the one scheme of general unemployment insurance, and the railwaymen as well. Bring in all the best lives to make your fund more generous. I can see how these things are operating. What would have been the position of the miners now, with 200,000 thrown out of work? Suppose the railways amalgamate, and the same thing comes about, that 100,000 of them are put out. The men will feel that, because they are an excepted section of industry. They will find themselves somewhat handicapped unless any compensation can be got from the scheme to which they are parties within that industry. But frankly I say that I believe that every industrialist in every kind of industry should come within a truly national insurance scheme, and then you would not have these anomalies.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. GARDNER: I am supporting the New Clause because I have practical experience of the difficulty of the men concerned. It is all very good of the Minister to say that all these people enter into these occupations on the assumption that they are permanent jobs. Of
course, he must be aware that matters of high policy are subjects beyond their control. If he has any doubt about it, there are many factors in public affairs to which I might draw his attention so as to bring him back to earth. He must be aware that his own Government will soon have to consider a Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and that if that Report be adopted, it may mean that a huge municipal service, the London County Council trams, may be handed over to the control of another body and the men employed on the trams may have their employment relations transferred. These men have reasonable ground to believe that by good conduct, keeping good time, and getting the trams along fast enough, which is a difficulty in these days, they would ordinarily reach the superannuation stage. The Minister assumes that that employment is permanent. What is the position of these men? Suppose that the new authority takes them outside the control of the municipal authority. There are other factors. A constituent wrote to me a letter, to which I replied only this morning. My advice to him was to go to the Employment Exchange, and get an appeal form, and throw the responsibility upon the right hon. Gentleman of saying whether he was in an excepted employment or not. He is a bath attendant at the outdoor baths, and in the winter on one occasion he was employed in painting street signs, and on another occasion employed in the electricity department. But the Ministry of Labour, in their wisdom, suddenly swooped down on the council and informed them that this man was a domestic servant, and that therefore he was in an excepted employment. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts my statement I will show him his own correspondence.
The result is that this man, who works six months as a domestic servant Watching people swimming in the open air is in a difficulty, and when he goes to the Employment Exchange he is in the unhappy position of not being able to claim unemployment benefit. The whole question raises a big difficulty. When this man paints street signs he is in an insurable employment, and when he goes to the electricity department he is in an insurable employment. One half of the year he is an insured workman, and the
other half of the year, while working for the same authority, is an uninsured workman. Is that good business or good insurance? If it is, for the life of me I cannot see it. Let me give another instance. The week before last my council decided to transfer the collection of dust from public control to private contract. The result is that 50 men, who in the ordinary course of events had the right to believe that they were likely to continue in public employment, as much as are the officials of this House, were suddenly, without reference to the electorate, and without being consulted in any way, informed that they had to go to the Employment Exchange. If they are transferred to a private contractor even the superannuation scheme is taken away, and they become ordinary insured persons. The Minister may say that it would be unfair to the Insurance Fund to bring in these men, but it would be still more unfair to throw them on the local authorities. One is tempted to get outside the Rules of Order, in discussing the effects of the Measure in this respect, but I hope the Minister will change his view. After all, when these people undertake this employment they have no voice as to what the result will be if they are discharged or transferred, and the least the Government can do is to make adequate provision in this respect.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am glad to gather from the Minister that the difficulties in the way of applying the proposed New Clause are not insuperable and that the cost would not be particularly heavy. Like the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), I would argue in favour of making this scheme all-embracing. If it were so, obviously there would be an all-round reduction of contributions, as a larger number of persons would be included in the scheme whose contributions would be available, but whose risk of unemployment would be relatively small. There is this to be said regarding the case of the railway men. I imagine that as time goes on and, possibly, as agitation develops, some attack may be made upon men in what are called sheltered industries like the railways. The railways might be compelled by economic pressure to begin a course of eliminating from their employment a certain number of their employés. Various forms of competition in transport may arise and a number of railway men may
be thrown out of employment or transferred from the service of the railways to other employments. There is no guarantee that they will be absorbed by the new form of transport which has compelled their discharge. They would probably find themselves in a very difficult situation and not well equipped for employment in other trades or occupations. Here is a case in which this Clause if accepted would be of great value.
It is because of cases of that description that the proposal has been put for ward. It is not assumed by the Mover or by any Member on these benches that the number is considerable. The number is not particularly large, but there ought to be no hardship inflicted upon persons who are in this type of employment, and they ought not to be subject to the difficulties which may arise though a change in occupation or a differentiation in their economic functions. It is reasonable to say that the employer should be called upon to put upon the man's card the necessary stamps. I would go as far as to say —

The CHAIRMAN: That is not one of the proposals in the Clause which is under discussion.

Mr. WALLHEAD: No; the Clause does not say that the employers should do it, but it has been hinted that it is the employer who will be called upon to do it. At least, it has been denied that the Exchequer should be called upon to do it. I would go as far as to say that the workman himself should be given the option of saying whether he would be prepared to put on the stamps in order to bring himself within the Act. I am sure in that way it would be possible to obviate certain hardships which every reasonable man must be desirous of avoiding.

Mr. MARCH: I was surprised to hear the Minister refuse this new Clause, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands the position of the workmen concerned. Those local authorities where exception has been made have had to prove, to some extent, that the men would be permanently employed and that there was no likelihood of their being thrown out of employment. Owing to the amalgamation of various concerns such as electric light undertakings and others, we find there is a probability of a
number of municipal electric stations being thrown out of commission, and there is no prospect of numbers of these men, who have hitherto worked in electric light stations, being employed by the board or corporation which is taking over the station. Many of these men will have to be transferred to other employments. They have, up to now, regarded their positions as secure so long as they gave good service and obeyed the regulations under which they were employed. It is no fault of theirs that these amalgamations have taken place, and some consideration should be given to this aspect of the case as well as to the others which have been mentioned. Then there are cases in which local authorities change their own system of work, such as the case of Hammersmith, which has, just been mentioned. We find, for instance, local authorities changing from

Division No. 436.]
AYES.
[10.15 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Vlant, S. P.


Edge, Sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


England, Colonel A.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Forrest, W.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner. J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Owen, Major G.
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M
Paling, W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.

horse power to mechanical power. They do not require the same number of men, and some men have to go to other employment. They are given a month's wages in lieu of notice, but that does not get them jobs or bring them into the Insurance Fund. You cannot expect a man to continue going to the Employment Exchange when he sees there is no hope-of getting employment and no hope of getting unemployment benefit. We think this is a reasonable proposal and, if the Minister is unable to accept the new-Clause, he may be able to devise some-other words which will meet the situation at a further stage in connection with this Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noels, 258.

NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Meller, R. J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Albery, Irving James
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Apsley, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Nelson, Sir Frank


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir Robert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Balniel, Lord
Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grant, Sir J. A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Frederick George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bennett, A. J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perring, Sir William George


Berry, Sir George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Preston, William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hammersley, S. S.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hanbury, C.
Radford, E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brown, Col D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, J. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Remnant, Sir James


Buchan, John
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Burman, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Roberts, E. H. G (Flint)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rye, F. G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Christie, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw. Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Clayton, G. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cohen. Major J. Brunel
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, cen'l)
Skelton, A. N.


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jephcott, A R
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Storry-Deans, R.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davidson, J (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Eric
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Dixey, A. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Drewe, C.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tinne, J. A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ellis, R. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Waddington, R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)




Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Withers, John James
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Womersley, W. J.



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Major Cope and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

The following new Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Lieut. Colonel HENEAGE:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to temporary agricultural workers.)

Any person already entitled to benefit Tinder the Unemployment Insurance Acts who takes up employment in agriculture for a period not exceeding three months shall still be entitled to receive benefit on ceasing his agricultural employment without any waiting period.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for the Louth Division does not move the new Clause standing in his name?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to say that we are satisfied with the concession made by the Minister in regard to the period, and I do not, therefore, wish to move.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exclusion of certain sub-postmasters.)

Paragraph (1) in the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Inclusion Order, 1925, dated the twenty-third day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, made by the Minister under the principal Act (which includes among the persons employed within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Acts any person employed as a sub-postmaster remunerated by scale payment who is mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from employment as a sub-postmaster, and renders on the average eighteen or more hours' personal service in each week in that capacity), shall cease to have effect. — [Mr. W. Baker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I understand that certain sub-postmasters are included within the Unemployment Insurance Act as a result of a Statutory Order which was laid upon the Table for a period of 30 days and, although the organisation which represents the men took exception to the proposal, it became a part of the Unemployment Insurance Act at the expiration of that time. I want to submit that, so far as these men are concerned, they are not persons to whom the Unemployment Insurance Act should apply. Sub-postmasters, who do not depend upon their earnings as sub-postmasters, are not, I
submit, employés of the Postmaster-General, but are contractors who enter into certain arrangements with his Department. I submit, in the second place, that they are retailers who normally would not be called upon to insure under the Unemployment Insurance Act; and, thirdly, that, in the main, they are employers who pay the employers' contribution so far as their own clerks are concerned. In these circumstances, I suggest that there is no case for the inclusion of certain of these sub-postmasters within the Act. As I understand it, half the sub-postmasters are excluded and half are included. The request I have to make, made on behalf of the Federation of Sub-postmasters, is that they shall be excluded from the operations of the Insurance Act as they were excluded for a period of six years as a result of' a decision of a previous Minister.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question is whether certain sub-post-masters should or should not be still under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The point is a very simple one. As sub-postmasters, they are insurable persons; as shopkeepers, or people with other employments which are not normally insurable, they would be not insurable. The question is, therefore, under which category are they to come? The compromise which has been arrived at provides that if they are more shopkeeper than postmaster they are not brought under the Act. If they do more than 18 hours' work in their own time in postmastering they come under the Act; otherwise, they do not, and I think, on the whole, that is a fair arrangement. It is similar to the arrangement which has been followed in other cases, and on the merits of the case and also because the general opinion, both of the Blanesburgh Committee and of most others, is against the extension of contracting out, we think it is not right that further contracting out should be allowed. Therefore, we cannot accept the proposed Clause.

Mr. VIANT: Is the question as to the line of demarcation submitted to the umpire?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is decided, I understand, by the Minister, and up to now this line of demarcation has been accepted. As a matter of fact, it is done by an Order of the Minister.

Mr. DUNCAN: Have any of these sub-postmasters ever had unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should require notice of that question, but I can confidently assure the hon. Member that in certain circumstances they might draw unemployment benefit.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 274.

Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut-Col. Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter


Clarry, Reginald George
Hills, Major John Waller
Ramsden, E.


Clayton, G. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Remer, J. R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remnant, Sir James


Colman, N. C. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurd, Percy A
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rye, F. G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Iveagh, Countess of
Salmon, Major I.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jephcott. A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sandon, Lord


Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Savery, S. S.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lamb, J. Q.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Dixey, A. C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Drewe, C.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Loder, J. de V.
Shepperson, E. W.


Ellis, R. G.
Long, Major Eric
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


England, Colonel A.
Looker, Herbert William
Skelton, A. N.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Storry-Deans, R.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
McLean, Major A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fermoy, Lord
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fielden. E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fraser, Captain Ian
Malone, Major P. B.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Templeton, W. P.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gates. Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tinne, J. A.


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waddington, R.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Greene, W. p. Crawford
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wayland, Sir William A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Hanbury, C.
Oakley, T.
Withers, John James


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)
Womersley, W. J.


Harland, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Perring, Sir William George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Haslam, Henry C.
Pilcher, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hawke, John Anthony
Power, Sir John Cecil
Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Penny.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, William

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT.

Resolved,
That this House concurs in the submission to His Majesty of the name of Mr. Hartshorn for appointment to the Indian Statutory Commission in place of Mr. Walsh, whose resignation on grounds of ill-health has been tendered to and accepted by His Majesty."—[Earl Winterton.]

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1926.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move,
That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the draft Order in Council presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, made by the President of the Board of Trade, and entitled the Merchandise Marks (Sale of Imported Goods) (No. 1) Order, 1927 (16 and 17 Geo. V., c. 53, s. 7), be annulled.
I have to apologise to hon. Members for keeping them a little late to-night. I can only say in extenuation of the circumstances in which I find myself that I have been postponing this Prayer for many nights to suit the convenience of certain hon. Members. It is very much to be regretted that important trades should find themselves liable to prosecution as a result of the statutory effect of an Order-in-Council, for which we have very little opportunity for Debate. Our only means is to move a Prayer of this kind, and it can only be moved at Eleven o'clock. But that ought not to prevent us from giving a short time to the consideration of some of the difficulties that arise. We have on the Table of the House the first draft Order-in-Council made under the Merchandise Marks Act for 1926, and in it we have Orders made for no fewer than eight separate trades, gold and silver leaf, woven labels, wire netting and woven wire, mill bobbins, felt hats and felt hat hoods, iron and steel wire and wire nails and staples, metal fittings, and tyres and tubes. Statutory conditions are laid upon all these trades with all the effect of a Statute passed after Debate in the House of Commons;. I ask the House to carry a Motion for the annulment of the Order, first, because I submit that the marking provisions will hamper the trade of the country and will involve an extraordinary amount of additional delay at the ports, very serious indeed for the trades concerned. They will involve
increased productive costs because of the additional labour required, and they will undoubtedly in some instances: raise the price to the consumer. It does not appear from the Report of the Committee which has been inquiring into these trades that in fact the Order is necessary in the interests of consumers.
I cannot hope in the short time that I want to take to deal with all the trades that are covered in the Order, but I want to take one or two specific instances. First of all, I take the case of rubber tyres and tubes. I consider from the Report that no evidencee was really submitted to the Committee to show that there exists at present any confusion in the public mind regarding the actual origin of the tyres. In fact, the Committee reported that the evidence indicated that the great bulk of imported motor and motor cycle covers and tubes were already branded with the name or mark of the makers, and it was admitted that there was little or no market in the United Kingdom for such covers and tubes unless they were branded. I am certain the large number of hon. Members opposite who are experienced in buying covers and tubes for their motors know that there is not the slightest confusion in their minds as to what is and what is not a British tyre. The Committee also said:
Most of the overseas manufacturers, whose products are imported into the United Kingdom, are represented here by British subsidiary companies, and it is probable that under Section 11 of the Act, as well as under Section 16 of the Government Order, the great majority of the abovementioned descriptions are already subject to the obligation to be marked with an indication of origin.
From that point of view, therefore, I submit, that there was no case for the making of the Order, and I suggest that it is extraordinarily difficult for Members of Parliament to exercise a proper judgment on an Order of this kind, which is to have statutory effect on traders, when we have only had a summary Report of the Committee on all the voluminous evidence which has been presented in respect of each of these trades. There is a point to which I want especially to direct the notice of the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, who, I understand, is going to reply, and that is the effect of the Order with regard to advertising. I remember when we were
discussing in Committee the Act under which this Order was made we had very long Debates in trying to persuade the President of the Board of Trade to a better frame of mind with regard to the difficulties which must come upon the trade in regard to advertising. The Act does not require an Order to be made merely for the marking of imported goods. It requires indications of the countries of origin in all advertisements and offers for sale. Because of the multitudinous ways in which the goods have to be advertised and offered it is extraordinarily difficult for traders to comply with such conditions as these.
I want to submit to-night that in the case of tyres quite an anomalous position arises, although I think this might also be applied to other commodities as well. Let me take the case of the Michelin Motor Tyre Company, or the Goodyear Tyre Company, or the Firestone Tyre Company, who are not only manufacturing tyres in other countries but are manufacturing them in this country as well. [Interruption.] I must accept the correction of the Noble Lord. There is a distinction between two of the companies and the Firestone Company. I do not want to prolong stating the case, but where they have more than one company, apparently, you. are to require these people in all their advertisements to indicate that the tyres are not only manufactured in this country but manufactured in all the other countries as well, and in all offers of sale as well as advertisements. When one remembers the variety of ways in which firms at present advertise their goods, you can understand the difficulty. I have seen, for example, motor cars advertised by means of a novel and wonderful device on the overalls of a motor mechanic. Apparently, it would be an offence under the Order-in-Council for a motor mechanic to wear a special suit of overalls on which there was an advertisement unless also there was, on his back, an indication that the tyres he represented were made not only in England, but in Canada, the United States of America, or in France, or wherever it might be. We may possibly see some poor unoffending mechanic being hauled off to explain why he is carrying about with him an advertisement of goods which is apparently a contravention of the law.

Mr. BROAD: Is it worth while following employment as a mechanic in that manner?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I quite agree. I do not want to see that special type of advertising followed. I am only using that to show the extreme difficulty, not-only in that case but in many other forms of advertising, of complying with that particular Order. Once an Order has been made, Section 5 of the Act comes automatically into force. Let me read Sub-section (2) of that Section:
If any person advertises or offers for sale as being goods of a particular brand or make or otherwise under a specific designation, whether by means of an illustration or by means of any written matter, any imported goods of a class or description to which an Order-in-Council under this Act applies, he shall, if he docs not include in the advertisement or offer an indication of the origin of the goods, and subject to the provisions of this Section, be deemed to have acted in contravention of an Order-in-Council made under this Act.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Will the hon. Gentleman read the next three lines?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I will certainly read them:
This Sub-section shall not apply in the case of any advertisement made, issued or published before the date on which the Order was made.
That only anticipates something I was going to refer to later on. The point under that is that the Committee, in reporting on this question of advertisements, seem to suggest that the position would be met if a certain formula were adopted in the advertisement, but the people concerned can now get no guarantee that they will be protected if in fact such a form of advertisement be used. I cannot think that the interruption of the President of the Board of Trade just now means that he wants to suggest to the traders concerned that before this Order comes in they should proceed to print multitudes of advertisements so that they will have a stock to last them for years in order to avoid the Act. Surely, that was not the spirit behind him in putting this Act on the Statute Book. It seems to me that he ought to have been trying, in the formulation of his Order, to arrive at a solution of the difficulty of these people.
Yet what has happened? I understand that there have been communications with the Board of Trade. The Board of trade officials replied to the people in question, saying that personally they agreed with the interpretation given in the Committee's Report and that, if any question arose upon it, the Board of Trade themselves would not initiate any proceedings. But that overlooks entirely the fact that the particular trader would not then be protected from any information laid by the common informer. On a purely technical point like this advertisement point, no one can say in the case of a tyre company that it would not be open at any time to a rival tyre company to take proceedings against them and cause them all this trouble and expense, which is quite unnecessary, because, in the case of tyres, everybody in this country would recognise that the Michelin, Goodyear and Firestone tyres are made in other countries as well as in this.
Time has gone much more quickly than I thought and I want to keep my pledge to the House not to keep them too long. I feel that we have a very strong case, and I do not want to spoil it by wearying their patience. I would like to add that the people concerned have taken counsel's opinion upon this matter, and they feel very strongly that it ought to be the duty of the Board of Trade, in interpreting this Act of Parliament, to see if a formula cannot be found to meet the case and to cover that particular point, so that traders may have proper protection. I believe that these traders want to carry out this Act with which I disagree, and it is only right that they should have reasonable protection in the matter. I do not wish to quote all the various inaccuracies which I have discovered in the various reports, and could very well place before the House, but I do want to say, in conclusion, that it seems to me highly regrettable that an Act of Parliament which is based upon a Bill first introduced into this House to deal with one commodity, an agricultural commodity, eggs, in respect of which the Committee which has inquired into that commodity has failed to recommend that the Act be applied—hon. Members know that the Act does rely upon the case of that one commodity—is now being applied to the serious detriment and great harassment of multitudinous trades
upon which this country depends for its commercial success. I have a connection, as the House knows, with a trading organisation which deals with a very wide range of commodities, and about every other day we receive communications at my office informing us that there is to be a new inquiry under the Merchandise Marks Act into some new commodity. If we were to claim the only right that we have in the matter of appearing with due evidence and in proper form before those Committees, those paid Committees, upon every commodity which is now the subject of an inquiry, the organisation headquarters with which I am connected would be engaged on nothing else from the beginning of the year to the end in opposing these hampering orders with respect, to marks. It seems to me that that is an impossible position for the trade and industry of this country to face, and I hope that those Members of this House not only on this side but those on the other side who are engaged in so many different businesses in this country will see eye to eye with me and oppose this Order.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry that this has become a party matter and that we cannot by reasoned arguments to-night change the vote of the House; but I do think that it is useful to have such a Debate as this and that the House ought to he grateful to my hon. Friend, the representative of the co-operative movement, for bringing this matter forward. This is another instance of the way in which this Government, who on countless platforms tell of their desire to help trade, deliberately hinder trade in this country. There is no business man connected with any of the businesses affected by this Order who would not say "No, thank you" to the Government for making this Order. I am talking of business men concerned in dealing with these particular articles affected by this Order, the people who are dealing in tyres, in woven labels, in art wire, in wire netting, in staples. Those people are being inconvenienced by the Government; a Government which lays itself out to be helping trade. They are being seriously inconvenienced in the interests of a Government which is professedly desirous of protecting British industry.
11.0 p.m.
My chief objection against this sort of Order is that they are thoroughly and
fundamentally hypocritical. The Government and hon. Members opposite who are trying to excuse this sort of Order, say: "You must protect the purchaser. He must know what he is buying." Hon. Members in this House who are purchasers, and there may be some, know perfectly well when they buy goods what they are buying. If they do not know, they would go into bankruptcy and not into the House of Commons. We must allow even a Conservative Government a certain amount of intelligence, yet they bring forward this Measure to protect the buyer, knowing perfectly well that what they are seeking to do is to make it a little more expensive and a little more difficult to import foreign manufactured goods into this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that applause. I wish hon. Members who hold that point of view would persuade the Government to be frank and deal with the problem on that line. It would have the advantage of bringing some revenue into the coffers of the Exchequer instead of imposing further difficulties and expense upon trade.
The particular company whose interests I have at heart at the present moment is the Michelin Tyre Company. I know hon. Members opposite will laugh; and I must inform my friends that the capital is French. Therefore they are outside the pale. The Michelin Tyre Company have put up a factory in Stoke-on-Trent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not care whose capital is used because my people in Stoke-on-Trent get employment. A Measure such as this, which interferes with the prosperity and production o that company, which hampers them in their advertising and methods of carrying on business, cannot possibly be m the interests of British trade anywhere or of my constituents in particular. Hon, Members in this House are always willing to denounce bureaucracy on the public platform. They all say, "We want no State interference with private enterprise."

Mr. DIXEY: Hear, hear!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope we shall have the vote of the hon. Member against this Order, because you could not have a more flagrant case of bureaucratic interference with private enterprise.
Honest protection I can understand, but this sort of niggling interference with private enterprise, based on the hypothetical idea that it will make it easier for British trade by forcing people to put foreign labels on imports, I cannot understand. [An HON. MEMBER: "The importer pays! "] I did not think it was necessary to explain that the consumer pays for these things. I am sorry to have to touch on that elementary principle. This additional expense falls on the consumer and no revenue accrues to the public exchequer. The Measure was brought in solely in order to save the face of the President of the Board of Trade, who was dragged into the introduction of this Act two years ago in the interests of the agricultural producers of eggs.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Mover and Seconder of this Prayer ask the House to annul the draft Order-in-Council made by the President of the Board of Trade and laid before Parliament under Section 7 of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1926. It is quite natural that both the Mover and Seconder should keep up their opposition to the original Measure to the bitter end. One might say that the House will probably admire their consistency, but what we cannot admire is the mental incapacity which compels them to draw such false conclusions. What is the procedure which has brought us to the present stage? Under Section 2 of the Act application for marking has to be made to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade must be satisfied that the application comes from a substantially interested party before the matter can be referred to a Committee of Inquiry. The Board of Trade have also to be satisfied that the manufacturers, producers, dealers, traders, users, consumers or wage-earners are substantially affected. Notices of such reference to the Committee have to be published in the "Gazette," and no inquiry can be commenced until 28 days from the date of publication. The Committee, when it is set up, as the hon. Member knows, meets generally in public. Its duties are to hear all the persons' representing the interests substantially affected. Incidentally, I would say that the Board of Trade advertise the fact that the Committee is to sit. They give the date and the times of the sittings.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does anyone represent the consumers?

Mr. HACKING: If they are substantially affected they can make application. If the right hon. and gallant Member buys sufficient Michelin tyres to warrant the suggestion that he is substantially interested, he will in all probability be heard at the inquiry. The Board of Trade advertise the fact that the Committee is to sit. They send notice to the Press and all the trade journals and they inform the leading chambers of commerce and trade organisations in the country. The Committee then gives consideration to the question whether or not indication of origin can be effectively applied without injury to the goods, and they recommend the form, if any, which such mark should take. Finally, they recommend the date upon which the Order for such marking should come into force. After the Report is made it must be printed and must be freely obtainable. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) a few days ago said that he had not been able to obtain copies of this Order. I think they were obtainable in the Vote Office at the time, and I obtained one for him. In any case he could have obtained the Order in the same way from the Vote Office or the Stationery Office.

Mr. MACKINDER: Can we have the constitution of the Committee?

Mr. HACKING: Certainly. Notice of the making of the Report must also be published in the "Gazette." In fact full publicity of every kind is given to the Committee. The Board of Trade must satisfy themselves that the indication of origin will not be prejudicial to traders in this country or in the Dominions. Finally, a copy of the draft Order is laid before Parliament for approval. After all these provisions there is still a further loophole of escape for those who are not satisfied. Under Section 3 of the Act application can be made to the Board of Trade for the modification or annulment of the Order. Section 3 reads:
If, where an Order-in-Council has been made under this Act … it is shown … that the application of the provisions of the Order or of some of those provisions … has caused or is likely to cause hardship "—
Then it proceeds to enact that the Government may direct that the Order, or
any particular provision of the Order, shall cease to apply or shall be modified as the case may be. I ask what further safeguards could possibly be instituted?

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I point out that in the case of a very large number of businesses, not only the one with which I am connected but large houses, it has been found necessary to keep standing counsel, who are employed every month in the year examining these applications.

Mr. HACKING: If that be true—I cannot say that it is—it only shows the popularity of this Measure, when so many people apply to come under it. As the hon. Member for Hillsborough has said, this is the first draft Order made under the 1926 Act, and all the conditions and Regulations laid down and all its provisions have been rigidly complied with. This Order says, in effect, that subject to the approval of Parliament it shall not be lawful after certain specified dates to sell or expose for sale in the United Kingdom any of the "following imported goods" unless they bear the mark of the country of origin. The hon. Member himself has gone through the list. He said there were eight recommendations, hut the first seven deal with sale or exposure for sale. They are not marked on import, and when the hon. Member referred as he did to the great deal of work entailed at the ports of the country, he was not, I hope, referring to the first seven articles in the Order but only to the one case of motor tyres. What are the arguments brought to bear by hon. Members in favour of annulment. I have not heard a word in disapproval of the publicity. A question has been asked about the constitution of the Committee, but I have not heard any hon. Member finding fault with the constitution of the Committee. In fact, I believe the hon. Member for Hillsborough has given his approval of the constitution of the Committee.

Mr. ALEXANDER: indicated dissent.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member shakes his head. When the Board of Trade Estimates were before the House on 25th July, the hon. Member was talking about the constitution of the Committees under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. He said:
Looking back over the Members who have been appointed to these Committees
it would seem that they have not been the type of person likely to be able to come to a really judicial judgment.
That is what he said of the Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Then he went on:
Under the Merchandise Marks Act there has been a rather better procedure adopted, and in the case of the chairmen, at any rate, they have generally been of a character likely to lead to a proper judicial inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 35th July, 1927; col. 900, Vol. 209.]
If these words had been used by an hon. Member on this side of the House I might not have considered it great praise, but coming from the hon. Member, who so strongly opposed this Act, I think we could not have stronger words in support of the judicial nature of the inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of the Chairman!"] The judicial nature of the Committee of the inquiry. An hon. Member has asked what is the constitution of the Committee? If the hon. Member will get the Order he will find exactly what is the constitution of the Committee. The names are: Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith, Mr. G. N. Barnes, who was a Member of this House for some considerable time, and Mr. F. It. Davenport, who has also a great reputation for impartiality in connection with these matters. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith is an old civil servant, and I am sure the hon. Member for Hillsborough would be the last to accuse him of any impartiality of any kind. The hon. Member for Hillsborough, talking about delays at the ports, read from page 4 of the Report in connection with tyres and said:
The evidence indicated that the great bulk of imported motor and motor cycle covers and tubes are already branded with the name or mark of the makers,
and he argued from that that it was not necessary to have any mark on importation, but if he had read the remaining lines he would have seen that it said:
There was, however, general agreement among the parties that there is some sale in the United Kingdom for cycle covers and tubes unmarked either with the manufacturer's name or trade mark or with an indication of origin.
In any case the Michelin Tyre Company has been referred to, and the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has said that 5,000 of his constituents have been found work in Stoke, and when he realises that the
works of that company will be large enough to find employment for 10,000 British workpeople making tyres which were previously made by French workmen, surely he will appreciate the advantages which he and his constituents are obtaining from this Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The advantages they are getting are land for nothing and no rates to pay on the buildings.

Mr. HACKING: I understand the municipality of Stoke were so anxious to find work for the people who are out of work there—more anxious than the right hon. Member—that they allowed the Michelin Tyre Company to come there on very advantageous terms. The point in connection with marking is this: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has quoted Michelin tyres which at present are made both in this country and abroad, and he would desire that there should be no marking at all of Michelin tyres. If there were no marking of them, it would be quite impossible for the people of this country to know whether they were purchasing foreign-made or British-made articles. May I make it plain that those made in Stoke need have no mark of origin on at all, but only those that come from abroad. After the speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, it seems hardly necessary for anybody on this side to defend the Order. He said that we would hamper trade by this marking. Well, we may hamper trade by the marking of these goods, but what we are not doing is hampering British trade. We are assisting British trade and assisting to find work for British workpeople.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough raised the question of advertisements in connection with tyres, and said quite rightly that, under Clause 5, Subsection (2), advertisements must bear an indication of origin, but as my right hon. Friend pointed out to him, this does not apply to advertisements already in existence before the Order was passed, before to-night. It does not apply still to-night. Manufacturers of tyres and other articles have plenty of opportunity of getting plenty of printing done before this Order comes into operation, but the chief objection to this particular advertising Clause came from the Firestone people who, as far as I know, have never manufactured tyres in this country, and
as far as I know do not intend to do so. No wonder such a firm objected to mark tyres. As far as the other firms are concerned, I believe they are quite satisfied with the statement made by the Board of Trade to the effect that it is not necessary to have on these advertisements any detail with regard to origin. It is quite sufficient to say in advertisements that may be put out in connection with any goods that the manufacturer has factories in France, Belgium, Germany, the United States, Canada, or wherever their factories are. The hon. Member fairly points out that although the Board of Trade will not take action if such wording as that is placed on the advertisement, he said, "How about the common informer?" It is unlikely that the common informer will take the case to Court when he knows that the Board of Trade, in their opinion, are interpreting the law correctly when they say that it is not actionable to have those words on the advertisement. In any case, even a common informer is liable to costs, and if he loses his case a first time, he is not likely to repeat the charge against any particular firm.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In principle, it ought to be made quite clear right through our trade legislation so that a trader ought to know whether he is really committing an offence or not.

Mr. HACKING: Legal decisions are given. It is not for a Government Department to interpret the law. We give advice, not interpretations. The Law Courts are there for that purpose, and, if anybody has any doubts about the interpretation of the law, they can have their test case at law—

Mr. J. JONES: And find work for the lawyers!

Mr. HACKING: And, incidentally, find work for at any rate one Member of the party opposite. I do not think there were any other questions addressed to me from any other quarter of the House. In conclusion, may I say that this Order has already stimulated the purchase of British goods, and a large number of applications are already in for hearing before the Courts of Inquiry. That is an indication that the trading community of this country are appreciating the provisions of this Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Iron and steel?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Gentleman did not raise the question of iron and steel. As a matter of fact, iron and steel does not come under the provisions of this Order, but, if the hon. Member will see me privately, I will give him a full explanation as to why the iron and steel inquiry is not included. It would be out of order for me to refer to it at this moment. British citizens will in future know the difference between British and foreign goods. That is what they have demanded for some considerable time, and they will now have an opportunity of knowing what goods are British and what goods are foreign. I would ask the House not to pass this Motion for annulment of the draft Order, which Order, if confirmed, will become an Order-in Council and will be essential if this Act is going to become, as we all believe it will become, a great success for the trading community and for the people of this country.

Mr. RILEY: May I ask whether, from paragraph 21 of this Order, we are to understand that the articles referred to are not to be marked before importation? If that be the case, will the hon. Gentleman explain how it will be possible for the factory to mark gold leaf after it his been imported?

Mr. HACKING: It is quite clear that the Committee which investigated this matter are of opinion that gold leaf can be marked, not every sheet of gold leaf, but the book which contains the gold leaf. Had it not been perfectly practicable for people who are selling gold leaf to mark the gold leaf before sale it is not likely the Committee would have made the recommendation. I will repeat once more that under Section 3 of the Act if there is any dissatisfaction with any Order there is still provision for an application being made to the Board of Trade for a modification of the Order.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not intend to keep the House more than a few minutes, but I would remind hon. Members that this particular method of presenting a Prayer to His Majesty is the only protection that the public and consumers have in this matter. We wanted to strengthen the provision, but we were assured by the President of the Board of Trade that we should have ample opportunity, at any rate on the first Order, to discuss it in the House. I am interested to see that
the President is sheltering behind the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. We are very glad to see that hon. Gentleman in his new position. We were certain that he would fill it with dignity, and certainly he has given ns a correct history of the introduction of the Act and the procedure to be followed, but I am surprised that the parent of this Act and the Parliamentary Secretary, who gave many weeks to this Actr—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have so often replied to the hon. Member that I thought he would want to hear another Minister.

Mr. HARRIS: The Minister who has answered is in charge of overseas trade, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the provisions of almost all these Orders are so framed that they do not apply to any extent to overseas trade, because they have omitted the need for marking these articles on importation. This matter directly concerns the home trade and industry as a whole. Many months were spent on this Act; what is the result? Most of the articles affected are articles of trade. The Minister made a great point of the fact that these articles concern the trading community only and will not directly affect the public as a whole. But they will affect the public by the increase in the price of certain articles which have to be used in manufacturing processes. Gold and silver leaf, for example, are used in the manufacture of many other articles, among other things, books. At present it is not sold direct to the public, but, as the inquiry showed, inevitably the results of these provisions will be to add to the cost of this raw material of industry. Take, again, felt hat hoods. I heard the Minister brush aside as a small problem the law costs that this Order will necessitate. I notice in the report on felt hat hoods that the committee of inquiry, point out that the actual interpretation of these provisions must inevitably lead to costs in the law Courts. That cannot help trade. A. very important centre of industry like Luton will be seriously affected by these provisions, and, whatever the decision of the committee may be, it is not going to help Luton. If you insist upon marking felt manufactured articles, it is bound to increase the cost.
It is proposed to tax brass water taps and fittings, and that is bound to add considerably to the cost of bar fittings. Many purchasers are quite ignorant of the country of origin of these particular goods, and you will only add to the cost of them by insisting on them being branded. Another article dealt with was woven labels, and in this case the public will not be protected at all. The public will not be enlightened, and the only people who will be affected will be those engaged in the trade, because these labels are used in the manufacture of certain garments of wear. The articles I have mentioned are only the predecessors of hundreds of other articles to be treated in the same way, and every little industry will find itself treated in this way by a side door. The inevitable effect of this policy must be to add to the cost. We have no guarantee in these inquiries that the general public will be represented, and the number of articles to be dealt with is likely to be so numerous that it will be found impossible for all the people concerned to go to the expense of stating their case against the proposed mark or brand. I support this Prayer, because I believe the policy which has been adopted by the Government will have the effect of hampering British industry by the operation of this Act. The course which has been adopted is that of hearing the evidence on one side, and then it is left to the opponents of the proposal to prove that it is going to do harm to industry. For that reason, we should take this early opportunity to make it clear that, for the protection of British trade and of the users of the articles as to which inquiry is made, the recommendations should be most closely scrutinised.

Mr. FENBY: I represent, I hope, that section of honest traders who may be affected by this Order in Council when it becomes operative. I am not going to argue its merits or demerits, but would like to ask the Minister in charge one or two questions as it affects my trade and the way in which I earn my living when I am not in this House. On page 7 of the proposed Order, sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 20 says:
Nothing in this Order shall apply to solid or semi-solid rubber tires.
May I ask the Minister if solid rubber tyres to be fitted to a cart-wheel come within this provision? The rubber tyre
for a cart-wheel of a particular size is neither round nor square, but subparagraph (b) mentions that the maximum diameter is to be an inch and a-quarter. Recently, when I got home to the forge, I found a pair of wheels that needed new rubber tyres. Some other repairs were needed, and I sent them to Leeds. I rang up the firm with whom I do business, and asked them to put a pair of good rubber tyres on those wheels. They asked what kind of tyres I wanted, and I said I was not particular so long as they were good. When they come back, they will, perhaps, be an inch and an eighth in diameter one way, but the other way they will be something like an inch and a-half in diameter. Which diameter is to be taken under subparagraph (b) of paragraph 20 of this proposed Order? I am not arguing the merits, but I want help in my particular difficulty as a tradesman, because the tradesman wants the Minister to tell him, if possible, how he is to keep within the law. Again, I am ordering that pair of tyres, not for myself, but for a customer. If this Order comes into operation, will the firm who supply me with them be responsible for having them marked, if they are not English, or shall I be responsible when I sell them to my customer? I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is smiling, and well he may, but a good many people will be in a difficulty, as I am, on these questions, and we want to set some kind of example. I would like the Minister in charge to answer the questions I have put.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can assure the hon. Member that he is not in the least likely to go to gaol; though if he persists in the practice of putting perambulator tyres on to large farm carts—

Division No. 438.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.


Cowan, D. M (Scottish Universities)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Day, Colonel Harry
Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben


Duncan, C.
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Dunnico, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sitch, Charles H.


Fenby, T. D.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Gardner, J. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, Joseph


>Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.

Mr. FENBY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat with proper respect the question which I put to him. I asked him whether solid or semi-solid rubber tyres include rubber tyree for cart wheels. A simple "Yes" or "No" is all that I want.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was just telling the hon. Member. What are exempted are solid or semi-solid rubber tyres or tyres generally known as perambulator tyres. Let his mind grasp the whole of that picture. What is excluded is the perambulator tyre. I have known the hon. Member in his capacity of politician and, long before, in his capacity of wheelwright, and I think he is a much better wheelwright than a politician. In any case, it is the gentleman who sells him a tyre that requires marking who is in danger. If the hon. Member puts a tyre on a cart which he is selling, then he is selling the cart and not the tyre, so he will be perfectly safe in pursuing his political and other avocations.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before I put the Question to the House, I should like to say a word to safeguard myself. This is the first of what may be a series of Orders, and, for that reason, I have allowed a latitude which is perhaps beyond the strict letter of the law. Hon. Members have been discussing a great deal of the Act itself and not simply the administration of the Act. On future occasions, it will be necessary for the Chair to keep the Debate rather more closely to the point.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 199.

Varley, Frank B.
Whiteley, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.
Wiggins, William Martin
Windsor, Walter


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. W. Hirst


Welsh, J. C.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Goff, Sir Park
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Albery, Irving James
Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grace, John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oakley, T.


Apsley, Lord
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Atholl, Duchess of
Grotrian, H. Brent
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atkinson, C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Penny, Frederick George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perring, Sir William George


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Red.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Davon, Barnstaple)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Betterton, Henry B.
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remnant, Sir James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Buchan, John
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtimth.S.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandon, Lord


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Christie, J. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jephcott. A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Waddington, R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dixey, A. C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghtan, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wolmer, Viscount


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Womersley, W. J.


Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.



Frece, Sir Walter de
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
 Margesson.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House,
without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November.

Adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.